AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Loss of Dependency,"Rs.6,88,500.00
Loss of consortium,"10,000.00
Loss of love and affection,"10,000.00
Loss of estate,"10,000.00
Transportation, funeral and obsequies","5,000.00
Total,"Rs.7,23,500.00
Â,
The Salary Certificate issued by the erstwhile employer bearing the seal along with the signature of the authorized signatory,
has been produced as Ex.P7, which reveals that the deceased was being paid a net salary of Rs.7,530/-. The Tribunal has refused to",
rely on the salary slip and recorded that the salary slip cannot be taken note of in the absence of the employer being examined and,
had adopted Rs.4,500/- as monthly income.",
Though the insurer seriously objects to the accepting of salary slip, both the learned counsel fairly submit that it would be",
reasonable if the income of the driver were to be taken between Rs.6,000 to Rs.7,000/-. Recording the said submission and taking",
judicial note of the wages that the driver at the time of accident would have been paid, it would be prudent to adopt the income of",
the deceased at Rs.6,500/- p.m.",
The consequential benefit i.e., claimed by the appellant relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi’s case is on the ground",
that deceased is entitled to the future prospects at the rate of 40% as it can be said that the driver is a person who is earning fixed,
salary. The insurer however objects to awarding of future prospects on the ground that there was no proof of income of the,
deceased, that on the basis of appropriate estimation, the notional income of deceased has been taken which is not ‘established",
income’ as contemplated in Pranay Sethi’s case.,
The learned counsel for the appellants has rightly relied upon the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of Hem Raj v.,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & others reported in 2018 ACJ 5 wherein while considering the contention of awarding future,
prospects, in the light of the objection that the income in the relevant case was on the basis of an estimate it was observed at paras",
11 to 13 as follows:,
The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that in the light of the said judgment 40 per cent increase on estimated,
income towards future prospects is required to be taken into account as the deceased was 40 years of age.,
Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that in absence of actual evidence of income the principle of adding on,
account of future prospects cannot be applied where income is determined by guesswork.,
We are of the view that there cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is,
determined on guesswork in the facts and circumstances of a case. Both the situations stand at the same footing. Accordingly, in",
the present case, addition of 40 percent to the income assessed by the Tribunal is required to be made. The Tribunal made",
addition of 50 per cent while the High Court has deleted the same.â€,
The judgment in case of Hem Raj while referring to judgment of Pranay Sethi’s case has elucidated the aspect of,
‘established income’ as referred to in Pranay Sethi’s case and categorically opined that no distinction can be made,
where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork in the facts and,
circumstances of the case.,
Many a time, the income of the claimant cannot be proved due to absence of sufficient evidence. Nevertheless in summary",
trials taking judicial note of the wages that the claimant in similar employment would have earned, the Court comes to a",
conclusion regarding income of the claimants which is adopted to calculate compensation. The recent decisions of the Apex,
Court wherein future prospects, has been awarded where notional income was adopted are:",
(a) Savitha and others vs Divisional Manager â€" (2018) 12 SCC Page 24, where future prospects of 40% was awarded on the",
notional income of Rs.5,000/-.",
(b) Jagadish vs Mohan, Civil Appeal No.2217 of 2018, the Apex Court even in the case of permanent disability awarded 40%",
towards future prospects where the injured was self employed inspite of no documentary proof of income.,
The other contentions of the claimants are that the award of compensation on the ground of loss of consortium, loss of love",
and affection, loss of dependency and towards transport and vehicle and obsequies is also inadequate and contends that by virtue",
of the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the claimant is",
entitled to a compensation of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads instead of the compensation of Rs.35,000/- awarded",
under the conventional heads by the Tribunal. The said aspect has not been seriously objected by the learned counsel for the,
Towards loss of dependency,"Rs.13,92,300/-
Towards Conventional heads,"Rs. 70,000/-
Total Compensation,"Rs.14,62,300/-
Less:
Compensation awarded by the
Tribunal","Rs.7,23,500/-
Enhanced Compensation,"Rs.7,38,800/-