Punjab-Haryana High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Amarjeet And Others on 9 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050190
130 2024:PHHC: 050190
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-1429-2024
Date of Decision: 09.04.2024
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ......APPELLANT
VS
AMARJEET AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH
Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for the respondents.
GURBIR SINGH, J.
1. This appeal is filed against the award dated 05.12.2023 passed
by MACT Sirsa Haryana whereby the claimants have been awarded a
compensation of Rs.15,83,400/- on account of death of Tej Pal due to motor
vehicle accident.
2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal
are that as per the case of the claimants, on 22.02.2019 at about
5.00/5.30 P.M, the son of the petitioner, Tej Pal (since deceased) was going
to his village Sikanderpur from Fatehabad on his motor cycle being driven
by him at a moderate speed and correct left side of the road and his cousin
was following him on a separate motor cycle. After crossing the village
Moriwala, when the deceased was going on service road, meanwhile a truck
came from Sirsa side and struck against the motorcycle of the deceased.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050190
Consequently, Tej Pal fell down on the road along with motorcycle. He was
brought to Govt. Hospital Sirsa where he was declared dead. The FIR
regarding the accident was also registered against respondent No.2-driver
and owner of the truck. Respondent No.2 contested the petition on the
ground that he has not caused any accident as alleged in the petition and his
vehicle was falsely involved in this case. The case was registered against
him to get the compensation. The appellant-Insurance Company contested
the petition on the ground that there is collusion between the claimant and
respondent No.2 to grab the compensation. The driver of offending truck
was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident.
On the basis of evidence led on the file the learned Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the accident was caused by respondent No.2 by driving truck
in a rash and negligence manner. The deceased was 29 years old at the time
of his death and no proof of income of the deceased was brought on the file
so deceased was treated as laborer. In view of the order of Deputy
Commissioner, Sirsa dated 14.05.2018, the wages of labourer were notified
as Rs.10,500/- so his income was considered as Rs.10,500/- per month. 40%
of the income was added as future prospects by adopting a multiplier of 17.
50% of the income was deducted as personal expenses. The total
compensation of Rs. 15,83,400/- was granted.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has
argued that Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased has relied
upon the minimum wages of the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa rather than
considering the minimum wages fixed by Labour Commissioner under the
Minimum Wages Act. The tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050190
deceased as Rs.10,500/- per month as per minimum wages fixed by Deputy
Commissioner, Sirsa.
4. Learned counsel for the claimant/caveator has submitted that
the question of assessing income on the basis of fixation of minimum wages
by the Deputy Commissioner was subject matter before the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in FAO NO. 3583 of 2022 along with other connected
cases and the same was decided 26.08.2022. In that case, minimum wages
fixed by the concerned Deputy Collector was taken into consideration and
the appeal was dismissed. The Insurance Company filed SLP
No.42225/2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on
27.02.2023.
5. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties.
6. The learned Tribunal relying on the order of Deputy
Commissioner Sirsa dated 14.05.2018 considered the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.10,500/-. The extract of the order is as under :-
"So, it cannot be accepted that he was earning
Rs. 14,000/15,000/- per month and he shall be treated as labourer only. As
per order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa dated 14.05.2018, labourer is
mentioned at Sr.No.9 and has been sanctioned Rs.10500/- as pay/wages per
month for 2018-2019. This letter was endorsed to various departments of
Haryana and Chandigarh, vide Endst.No.296-318/DN dated 14.05.2018,
which includes a copy to Accountant General, Haryana at Chandigarh at
Sr.No.6 and All Head of Offices in District in Sirsa mentioned at Sr.No.10.
So, the deceased will be considered as a labourer with monthly income of
Rs.10500/- (on account of death occurred before March, 2019 which comes
to Rs.1,26,000/- per year."
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050190
7. The deceased was resident of Sirsa. There was no evidence
brought on the file by the appellant or respondent No.2 that minimum wages
notified by the Labour Commissioner under the Minimum Wages Act are
required to be taken into consideration for assessing the income of the
deceased instead of rates notified by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa. In
FAO No.3583-2022, it is held by the Coordinate Bench of this Court that
tribunal is not bound to accept the minimum wages notified under the
minimum wages by the Labour Commissioner. The Tribunal is required to
analyze the evidence in the peculiar facts of the case and decide the income.
The SLP filed against the said judgment titled as United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Amarjit & Ors was dismissed. Thus, the learned Tribunal has
rightly relied upon the rates notified by the Deputy Commissioner Sirsa,
where the deceased was residing.
8. In view of above, I do not find any illegality in the order passed
by the learned Tribunal. The appeal is without merit and dismissed
accordingly.
(GURBIR SINGH)
09.04.2024 JUDGE
renu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
