Raman Kumar Jha v. Amrish Sharma & Ors

1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide judgment dated 23rd May 2018, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT/Tribunal’) Karkardooma Courts, in MACT No. 460/2017, whereby compensation at Rs. 11,03,144/- along with interest @9% per annum was awarded with respect to an accident which occurred on 23rd April 2017, near Ghaziabad. Appellant sustained injuries as a result of the accident and was awarded compensation by the MACT on that account.

2. Mr. Ritik Singh, counsel for appellant, claims enhancement on two grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that the loss of income for the period of six months during which appellant could not attend work has been computed on the basis of the minimum wages of an unskilled worker, i.e., Rs.13,350/- per month. Counsel submits that appellant had placed on record his Form-16 and salary slips to establish that he was employed as a Manager with EFC Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs.20,800/- per month.

3. Secondly, it is submitted that the attendant charges have been incorrectly assessed at Rs.50,000/- for five months, despite the testimony of Ravi Ranjan Jha, who deposed that he had worked as the appellant's attendant from June 2017 to October 2017 and was paid Rs. 15,000/- per month.

4. As regards the second issue, there is merit in appellant's contention. The MACT, in paragraph 19 of the impugned award, recorded that Ravi Ranjan Jha had worked as an attendant from June 2017 to October 2017 and had received Rs.15,000/- per month. However, only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded under this head. Accordingly, the compensation towards attendant charges is enhanced to Rs. 75,000/-.

5. With respect to the first issue relating to the assessment of income, although appellant claimed that he was employed with EFC Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., no representative of the employer was examined to prove the employment or the salary slips relied upon by appellant.

6. The issue of assessment of income in cases of categorical evidence not being provided, has been taken into account by this Court in Savita & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2026:DHC:3626 wherein, this Court culled principles for assessment of minimum wages. Noting scenarios where there is no documentary proof of income in an informal sector and oral testimony of family members has been provided, minimum wages should be used as a yardstick and the Courts should not be constrained to consider wages from the lowest tier. Relevant paragraphs of the said decision are extracted as under: “Guideposts

30. Principles which may be culled out from these cases cited above, and be used as guidepost for assessment of benchmark income, can be summarised as under:

7. Considering that appellant's testimony that he was employed with EFC Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs. 20,800/- per month remained unshaken during cross-examination, applying the principles enunciated in Savita (supra), this Court is of the view that, although the salary slips have not been formally proved by examining a representative of the employer, it would be appropriate to compute the loss of income on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker, i.e., Rs.16,468/- per month, rather than the minimum wages of an unskilled worker as adopted by the MACT.

8. The revised compensation is as under:

1. Compensation towards medical bills (A) Rs. 8,53,044/- Rs. 8,53,044/-

2. Expenditure on special diet and conveyance (B) Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/-

3. Attendant Charges (C) Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 15,000 x 5= Rs. 75,000/-

4. Income of injured per month (D) Rs. 13,350/- Rs. 16,468/-

5. Loss of income [D x 6]=E Rs. 80,100/- Rs. 98,808/- Non-pecuniary loss