The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case Kavita Devi and others v. United India Insurance Company Limited observed and has held that while computing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, no such restriction can be imposed in assessing the income of deceased or the injured in order to assess just and fair compensation for the dependents.
The court in the case stated that usually in the absence of a salary certificate, ‘minimum wages notification’ can be considered in order to determine the notional income of deceased in motor accident claim cases.
The bench headed by Justice Amarjot Bhatti while hearing the batch of pleas filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited against challenging the orders of Motor Vehicle Tribunal observed that the income which is provided in Minimum Wages Act, revised from time to time can be a basic criteria or guideline to assess the income of deceased or injured, as the case may be.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has stated that no such restriction can be imposed in order to assess the income of deceased or the injured in order to assess just and fair compensation for the dependents.
The bench in the case observed and has reasoned that the provision to grant compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and, in such kind of situation, the restriction to assess the income of deceased victim as provided under Minimum Wages Act is ‘unjustified’.
In the present case, the deceased was running a photostat shop with alleged income of Rs. 18,000/- per month and no proof of income was produced.
Therefore, the court observed that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had assessed the compensation by considering the income of deceased for an amount of Rs. 7,150/- per month as per DC Rate.
The counsel appearing for the insurance company argued before the court that the quantum of compensation which is awarded in favour of the wife of the deceased and others on account of death of one Sultan in a motor vehicle accident is towards the higher side.
The bench headed by Justice Bhatti opined that there cannot be any fixed rule in all the situations where there is no documentary evidence with regards to the income of the deceased nor there is any fixed rule that income of the deceased has to be taken only as per minimum wages which are revised from time to time.
the court stated that the income assessed by the Tribunal is not excessive, rather no future prospects have been considered
Further, it has been held that the compensation which is awarded by the Tribunal requires re-calculation. Court calculated the enhanced compensation.
Accordingly, the court disposed of the plea.
The counsel, Advocate Jagjeet Beniwal appeared for respondent No. 1 in FAO-1114-2018. The counsel, Advocate Manjeet Singh appeared for the respondent No. 3 in FAO-1114-2018. The counsel, Advocate R.P. Singh Ahluwalia represented the respondent No. 6 in FAO-1114-2018.