The Punjab and Haryana High Court opined that income from agriculture and dairy farming is not included when notional income is assessed for computing compensation payable to the claimant under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The rationale for this is that the income from land and milch cattle continue even after the death of the deceased and hence, there is not much loss from such types of income.
Brief Facts:
The present appeal has been instituted by the Appellants (Claimants) seeking enhancement of compensation passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was submitted that the compensation should be enhanced, keeping in mind the earnings of the deceased. The assessment done by the Tribunal does not take into account the actual salary earned by the deceased.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that as the Appellants did not produce any documentary evidence in support of their contention that the deceased had any income from agriculture or dairy farming and no documentary proof was produced to show that the deceased owned any agricultural land, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- per month. Since the deceased was admittedly a bachelor at the time of his death, a deduction of 50% was made towards personal and living expenses.
It was opined that income from agriculture and dairy farming is not included when notional income is assessed for computing compensation payable to the claimant. The rationale for this is that the income from land and milch cattle continues even after the death of the deceased. Thus, there is not much loss from such types of income.
The decision of the Court:
The High Court noted that the beneficial legislation cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit and based on the aforementioned reasons, accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Tejinder Singh and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited And Others
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Nidhi Gupta
Case No: FAO 3419/2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
