United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Beli @ Baila & Ors.

1. These appeals have been filed on the issue of quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [‘MACT’], Tis Hazari Courts in claim no. 907/2012 dated 10th October 2014 for an amount of Rs.21,38,824/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

2. The accident occurred on 22nd November 2012 at about 9:20 p.m. when late Sh. Faujdar (hereinafter, ‘deceased’) aged about 40 years of age was travelling on a bicycle along with Bahadur Lal from Loni to Panchsheel Colony. When they reached Loni Road, a truck bearing registration no. UP- 13T-1900 being driven rashly and negligently by the driver hit the bicycle of deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries. FIR no. 895/2012 was filed at P.S. Sahibabad,

3. Mr. Nikhil Jain, counsel appears on behalf of Insurance Company and seeks reduction of the amount of compensation awarded; whereas, Mr. Anshuman Bal, counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant, in the crossappeal seeks enhancement.

4. Mr. Jain, counsel for Insurance Company has raised twin issues on the aspect of multiplier taken for computation of compensation and future prospects awarded by the MACT. He states that as per the ration card, the age of deceased was 36 as on 15th December 2006, therefore, he would have been 42 years old when the accident took place. Therefore, a multiplier of 14 should have been taken.

5. Relying upon the driving licence of deceased, the MACT considered the age of deceased as 40 years and 7 months.

6. The Court has perused the driving license, exhibited as Ex.PW1/2, which shows the date of birth of deceased as 17th April 1972, whereas the accident occurred on 27th November 2012. Accordingly, the deceased would have been 40 years and 7 months as on the date of accident.

7. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, a multiplier of 15 has been correctly applied by the MACT.

8. As regards future prospects, Mr. Jain, counsel for Insurance Company, states that there was no evidence that the deceased was working in a permanent job, therefore, 25% towards future prospects should have been granted for a self-employed person or working on a fixed salary. The issue of future prospects awarded to individuals working at a fixed salary or self-employed has been standardized by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and the relevant observations of the Court are extracted as under: “59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” (emphasis added)

9. On the other hand, Mr. Bal, counsel for claimants, has raised an issue that the deceased was working as a driver and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month, however, the MACT has assessed his wages at minimum wages for a skilled person at Rs.8,814/-, there being no proof filed to support his claim of vocation as a driver.

10. Mr. Bal, counsel for claimants, has drawn the attention of this Court to Ex. PW-1/A, statement of wife of the deceased, PW-1, to support his contention.

11. He has placed reliance upon the decision in Minu Rout & Anr. v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 695, where the Supreme Court considered the vocation of a driver as a skilled job and determined the monthly income of deceased.

12. The claim petition stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month; however, the oral evidence was not accepted by the Tribunal, since there was no documentary evidence and took the income of deceased as Rs. 3,000/-. Supreme Court, however, held that the Tribunal ought to have taken the salary of deceased, who was working as a driver at Rs.6,000/-, by taking judicial notice of the fact the post of a driver is a skilled job.

13. On this basis, Mr. Bal, counsel for claimants states that the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been taken as higher than the minimum wages for a skilled person, as assessed by the MACT.

14. Reliance may also be placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, (2022) 1 SCC 198 where the Supreme Court has stated that in the absence of documentary evidence, some amount of guesswork is required to be done, though the guesswork should not be totally detached from reality. While computing the income, the adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage should not be the default mechanism, if the claimants have been unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income.

15. In that case, while assessing the benchmark income of deceased for the purpose of loss of dependency, the Court arrived at the finding on the basis of age and nature of work, which was purported to be done by deceased.