[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anjali And Ors vs Surender And Ors on 16 December, 2025
FAO-
FAO-1948-
1948-2025 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-
FAO-1948-
1948-2025
2025 (O&M)
Reserved on : 10.11.2025
Pronounced on : 16.12.2025
Anjali and others ...Appellants
Versus
Surender and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present: Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3.
HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J.
1. The appellants are the legal heirs of Sunil Kumar, who
died in a motor vehicle accident. They are seeking modification of the
Award dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby an
amount of Rs.20,78,400/- has been awarded as compensation to the
appellants along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing
the claim petition, till its realization.
2. The issue involved in the present appeal primarily relates
to the determination of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The facts to the relevant extent are such that on
26.03.2022, at about 11.00 p.m., Sunil, since deceased, was going on
Eicher vehicle and was hit by a Truck bearing registration No.HR39-E-
8798 (hereinafter referred to as the 'truck'), which came from the
opposite side and was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
1 of 8
FAO-
FAO-1948-
1948-2025 (O&M)
manner. Sunil died at the spot. The driver of the truck fled leaving the
truck behind. An FIR bearing No.369 dated 27.03.2022 under Sections
279, 304A IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar, Hisar. The
appellants filed claim petition seeking compensation from the driver,
owner and insurer of the truck. The petition was contested by the
driver, owner and the Insurance Company and ultimately, the Tribunal
awarded compensation as under: -
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1. Monthly income Rs.13,500/-
2. Future prospects @ 25% Rs.16,875/- (Rs.13,500/- + Rs.3,375/-)
3. Deduction 1/3rd Rs.11,300/-
4. Annual income Rs.1,35,600/-
5. Multiplier of '14' Rs.18,98,400/-
6. Loss of dependency Rs.18,98,400/-
7. Consortium Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 3)
8. Transportation and Funeral Rs.18,000/-
charges
9. Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.20,78.400/--
Rs.20,78.400/
Interest @ 7% per
annum
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the
deceased was a driver by profession and he possessed a Heavy Driving
License, which was produced during the evidence of the petitioner-
appellants as Ex.P-11. Even the wife of the deceased had testified
regarding the income of the deceased, however, the said evidence has
been ignored by the Tribunal while assessing the monthly income of
the deceased as Rs.13,500/- on the basis of minimum wages notified by
the State Government. While placing reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram & Anr. Vs.
Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors., (2022) 1 SCC 198, it is contended that
2 of 8
FAO-
FAO-1948-
1948-2025 (O&M)
income of the deceased should be determined on the basis of oral
statement of wife of the deceased.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
contends that the income has been rightly considered by the Tribunal as
there was no documentary evidence to prove the same as Rs.25,000/-
per month. Reliance has been placed on the decision by the Apex
Court in Manusha Sreekumar and ors. vs The United India Insurance
Co.Ltd., (2022) 17 SCC 321.
6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused
the paper-book.
7. The Tribunal has assessed notionally the income of the
deceased as Rs.13,500/- per month on parity with minimum wages
earned by a Heavy Vehicle Driver in the State of Haryana on the date
of accident.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra @ Chanda @
Chandraram (supra) has held that in the absence of a salary certificate,
the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick, but as the same
time, cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In
absence of documentary evidence on record, some amount of guess
work is required to be done. But at the same time, the guess work for
assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached
from reality. The following observations were made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court:-
"9. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was
possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning
3 of 8
FAO-
FAO-1948-
1948-2025 (O&M)
Rs.15,000/- per month. Possessing such licence and driving of
heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on
record. Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed
as AW 1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs.15,000/- per
month, same was not considered only on the ground that salary
certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income
of the deceased by adopting minimum wages notified for the skilled
labour in the year 2016. In absence of salary certificate the
minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time
cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In
absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of
guesswork is required to be tone. But at the same time the
guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be
totally detached from reality. Merely because the claimants were
unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly
income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of
minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to
discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has
deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs. 15,000 per
month."
9. While relying upon the observations in Chandra @
Chanda @ Chandraram (supra), keeping in view the import of Section
57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and while taking judicial notice of
the provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Payment of Fair
Wages Act, 1971 (for short, the Kerala Fair Wages Act), the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Manusha Sreekumar (supra) has also assessed the
income of the deceased notionally as prescribed in minimum pay scale
of the workers in the Kerala Fair Wages Act. The income was assessed
by treating the driver as a 'skilled worker'. The observations are as
under:-
"19. Applying the above parameters to the instant case, there exists
sufficient evidence to show that the Deceased, undoubtedly, was a
fish vendor-cum-driver with a valid license. The certificate issued
by the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board,
4 of 8
FAO-
FAO-1948-
1948-2025 (O&M)
certifying the Deceased as the driver of light motor goods vehicle
bearing Registration No. KL-36-B-7822 under the ownership of one
Shri Prakashan has been proved on record. Further, the Deceased
had also paid all his subscriptions to the Board from April 2012 until
the month he died. We find no reason to doubt that the Deceased
was a driver at the time of his death. This Court in Chandra Alias
Chanda Alias Chandraram and Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and
Ors. (2022) 1 SCC 198, has aptly held that in the absence of a salary
certificate, the minimum wages notification along with some amount
of guesswork that is not completely detached from reality shall act
as a yardstick to determine the income of the deceased. In this
context, keeping in view the import of section 57 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, we take judicial notice of the provisions of the
Kerala Fair Wages Act, especially section 2 thereof which defines
the following expressions:-
xxxxx
20. Schedule B-Category III of the Kerala Fair Wages Act classifies
a driver as a "Skilled worker". Reading this in conjunction with the
Notification that came into effect from 01.01.2015 which amended
Schedule A of the Kerala Fair Wages Act, prescribing a minimum
pay scale of the workers listed in Schedule B, it is apparent that a
`driver' in Kerala earned a minimum of Rs. 15,600/- in 2015. It
appears to us that the aforesaid Act and the notification issued
thereunder were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal or the
High Court. As a result thereto, the High Court could not be
cognizant of the statutory mandate prescribing minimum wages for a
skilled worker like `driver', and thus, erred in fixing the income of
the Deceased at Rs.10,000/-. We are therefore inclined to fix the
income of the Deceased notionally at Rs. 15,600/- per month."
10. This Court in Paramjit Kaur and others Vs. Satpal and
others, FAO 1619 of 2002, decided on 08.08.2023 also observed that
where no evidence is brought on record by the claimants to prove the
income of the deceased, minimum wages prevalent in the state at the
time of the accident should be considered to determine the monthly
income of the deceased. The observations are as under:-
5 of 8
FAO-
FAO-1948-
1948-2025 (O&M)
"25. This Court has also gone through the judgment of the co-
ordinate bench of this Court in Ram General Insurance Company
Ltd. V. Beant Kaur, 2020 ACJ 2163: Law Finder Doc Id # 1434464,
wherein it was held that the in cases where no evidence is brought
on record by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased/
injured, it is the minimum wages as fixed under the Minimum
Wages Act which should be taken as a 'primary' guiding factor
while assessing the income of the deceased. For the sake of
convenience, Para 11 and 12 of the judgment is reproduced
herebelow:
"11. There is merit in the proposition that in cases where no
evidence is brought on record by the claimants to prove the
income of the deceased/injured, it is the minimum wages as fixed
under the Minimum Wages Act which should be taken as the
'primary' guiding factor while assessing the income for the purpose
of calculation of the compensation to be awarded under the Motor
Vehicles Act.
12. At the same time, it is not possible to hold that in all situations
where no documentary evidence is brought on record, it is the
minimum wage as fixed under the Minimum Wages Act which
alone is to be assessed as the income of the deceased/injured
dehors the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
Doubtlessly, minimum wage fixed under the Minimum Wages Act
provides a sound criterion/guideline and benchmark to assess the
income of the deceased/injured in such cases, but at the same time,
the tribunal/Court cannot be confined or restricted to the same. It
is open to the tribunal/Court to assess the income at a rate which
may be higher than the minimum wage so notified keeping in view
the evidence on record in that particular case."
26. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and
followed by coordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is of the view
that for the purpose of assessing the amount of compensation
payable to the claimants, minimum wages prevalent in the state at
the time of the accident should be considered to determine the
monthly income of the deceased. In the case in hand, accident
occurred on 14.02.1998 in the jurisdiction of the Police Station,
Rajpura, Punjab, thus, the minimum wages prevalent in the state of
Punjab at the time of accident is applicable. ....."
(Emphasis supplied)
6 of 8
FAO-
FAO-1948-
1948-2025 (O&M)
11. Coming to the facts of the present case, no doubt, the
deceased was driving a truck at the time of the accident and he is stated
to be holding a driving license, Ex.P-16 for driving a heavy vehicle, no
presumption can be drawn that he was earning Rs.25,000/- as stated by
the claimant-wife of the deceased. In the cross-examination, Anjali
(PW-1) wife of the deceased has shown her inability to produce any
documentary evidence regarding the income of her husband.
12. The counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the
income has been considered on a higher side since the minimum wages
for a skilled worker as on 01.01.2022 were Rs.12,888.97/- per month as
per the notification dated 08.04.2022 issued by the Labour Department,
Government of Haryana.
13. The contentions urged on behalf of the Insurance
Company that the minimum wages were on lower side as such, the
income should be reduced cannot be accepted since the Insurance
Company has not filed any appeal against the findings of the Tribunal,
as such, this Court is not inclined to decrease the quantum of
compensation by determining the income of the deceased as
Rs. 12,888.97/- instead of Rs.13,500/- as determined by the Tribunal.
Therefore, findings of the Tribunal regarding determination of the
monthly income of the deceased require no interference.
14. There is no dispute regarding the findings of the Tribunal
regarding age of the deceased as 41 years and the findings that the
claimants who are his wife, minor daughter and aged mother,
respectively, were dependent on him. As such the deduction towards
7 of 8
FAO-
FAO-1948-
1948-2025 (O&M)
personal expenses to the extent of 1/3rd and the multiplier of '14' has
been rightly applied. There is no reason to re-determine the
compensation awarded towards the conventional heads.
15. The Award of the Tribunal is well-reasoned, and no
interference is required on the findings of facts and law. The present
appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
16.12.2025 [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN]
atulsethi JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
8 of 8
