Having regard to the totality of circumstances, this Court is
of the considered and unambiguous opinion that the deceased’s
monthly income must be assessed by synthesising several
streams of his livelihood. The record demonstrates that the
deceased had obtained consent letters from the statutory
authority for carrying out mining activities; that he was the
registered owner of a Hydra Mob Crane for which he was
punctually discharging monthly instalment of Rs.35,170/-; and
that he simultaneously held agricultural land capable of yielding
regular income. This Court, on taking all these factors
cumulatively, concludes that the deceased was earning no less
than an amount of Rs.45,000/- per month from his mining and
agricultural ventures. This conclusion stands reinforced by the
evidence of consistent payment of licence fees for the mines as
well as repayment of the EMI for the crane loan. Accordingly, this
Court deems it proper to assess the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.45,000/- for the purposes of computation of just
compensation. {Para 18}
Reportable
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3011/2018
Smt. Imrati Devi Vs Nattha Ram
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Dated: 23/09/2025.
1. The present misc. appeal has been preferred by the
appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation
amount awarded vide Judgment and Award dated 23.07.2018
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur (for
brevity ‘learned Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 149/2014 (N.C.V. No.
1922/14).
2. The learned Tribunal quantified the compensation at
Rs.7,88,692/- in favour of the claimants, together with interest at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition. The appellants, being dissatisfied with the quantum so
determined, have approached this Court.
3. Brief facts as pleaded in the claim petition are that on
09.01.2014, one Dhalaram was travelling from Balesar towards his
native village on his motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-19-SP4130. At about 1:00 P.M., near Shaheed Bhanwar Singh Choraha,
a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-34-UA-0794, driven in
a rash and negligent manner, rammed into the motorcycle from
behind. Dhalaram sustained grievous injuries and despite best
efforts, succumbed to the injuries. FIR No. 5/2014 came to be
registered at Police Station, Balesar. The offending vehicle, on the
date of accident, was duly insured with respondent No. 4
Insurance Company.
4. The appellants-claimants are the dependents of deceased
Dhalaram. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues,
evaluating the evidence available on record, and after hearing
counsels for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of
the deceased to be Rs.4,914/-, awarded total compensation of
Rs.7,88,692/- (including interim compensation of Rs.50,000) in
favour of the appellants-claimants, the breakup of which is as
under:
1. Income per month (after addition of
future prospects (25%) and
deduction for personal and living
expenses (1/4th) in the monthly
income of Rs.4,914/-)
Rs.4,607/-
2. Loss of Income (as per the age of
the deceased i.e. 49 years, a
multiplier of 13)
4,607 x 12 x 13
=
Rs.7,18,692/-
3. Under the head of ‘Consortium’ Rs.40,000/-
4. Under the head of ‘Funeral
Expenses’
Rs.15,000/-
5. Under the head of ‘Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
6. Total amount of compensation Rs.7,88,692/-
5. Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @9% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 19.06.2014.
6. The appellants–claimants have assailed the impugned award
primarily on two grounds:
(i) That the learned Tribunal erred in treating the deceased
to be an unskilled labour drawing Rs.4,914/- per month,
whereas material on record unmistakably disclosed that the
deceased was engaged in mining operations, held requisite
statutory consents, owned heavy machinery such as a crane
and tractor, was paying Rs.35,170/- per month as EMI
towards crane loan, and was also engaged in agricultural
activities yielding not less than Rs.10,000/- per month. It is
thus contended that his monthly earnings were not less than
Rs.1,10,000/- and certainly not less than Rs.50,000/-.
(ii) That the learned Tribunal committed a significant error in
its adjudication by providing insufficient compensation qua
the conventional head of ‘Consortium’.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent–
Insurance Company, while supporting the impugned award in so
far as it pertained to the computation of income of the deceased,
contended that there was no cogent documentary evidence, such
as income-tax returns or other reliable financial records, available
on record to substantiate the assertion of a higher income of the
deceased. However, he could not refute the position of law
regarding the award of insufficient compensation qua conventional
head of ‘Consortium’.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
9. Smt. Imarti Devi (AW–2), widow of the deceased, deposed
that her husband was actively engaged in mining operations; that
he owned a mine and had also taken another (owned by Smt.
Sushila Meethalal) on lease; that he was in possession of a crane
and tractor used for the said activities; and that he was
discharging substantial EMI of Rs.35,170/- per month towards a
crane loan. The statements of the said claimant stand
corroborated by documentary evidence- namely, the certificate of
registration of crane (Exh.22A), loan statement issued by HDFC
Bank (Exh.23) and the bank passbook (Exh.24A). The statutory
consent orders (Exhs.17 & 19) issued by the Rajasthan State
Pollution Control Board further corroborate the fact that the
deceased was lawfully engaged in mining activities.
10. A perusal of Exhibits 17 and 19 reveals that the Rajasthan
State Pollution Control Board, Jodhpur had in the years 2011 and
2014 respectively, granted extensions of consent in favour of
deceased Dhalaram, thereby authorising him to lawfully carry on
mining operations. Such statutory consents definitely presuppose
not only the existence of mining rights but also requisite
infrastructure to operate the said mine.
11. True it is that the claimants have not placed on record the
Income Tax Returns or the audited financial statements to
conclusively establish the quantum of earnings from any mining
activity; or any formal lease deed or revenue document to
substantiate the assertion that one of the mines was taken on
lease from Smt. Sushila, however, the absence of such
documentation does not ipso facto negate the fact of the
deceased’s engagement in mining activities. On the contrary, the
official consent orders issued by the statutory authority constitute
unimpeachable evidence that the deceased was actively carrying
on mining operations prior to the unfortunate accident. Equally
compelling is the evidence relating to the ownership and financing
of heavy machinery by the deceased. Exhibit 22A, the Certificate
of Registration of a crane (Hydra Mob Crane) stood in the name of
the deceased. Exhibit 23, the Vehicle Loan Statement issued by
HDFC Bank Ltd., and Exhibit 24A, the Bank Passbook of the
deceased collectively reflect a repayment of Rs.35,170/- every
month as EMI for the crane. The bank record further reflects that
such payments were made right up till 21.12.2013, that is, till the
month before the fateful accident on 09.01.2014.
12. In view of the above documentary evidence, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the ability of an individual to repay
heavy loan instalments on a regular basis, presupposes the
existence of an income substantially higher than the liability
discharged. In the given facts, it would be wholly unrealistic to
assume that a person paying EMI exceeding Rs.35,000/- could
have been subsisting on a meagre income of Rs.4,914/- per
month. The financial outgo evidenced by the bank transactions
constitutes strong circumstantial proof of the deceased’s earning
capacity. Consequently, this Court deems it proper to hold that the
deceased’s monthly earnings were definitely higher than the EMI
payments, and the said fact ought to have been taken into
consideration while assessing the quantum of compensation.
13. In Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.;
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778, Hon’ble the Apex Court held that
where a deceased was regularly servicing a substantial loan
instalment, such fact constitutes reliable evidence of earning
capacity and the Courts ought not to resort blindly to minimum
wage notifications. The same ratio applies herein too. A man
discharging monthly EMI exceeding Rs.35,000/- while maintaining
a family of six could not possibly be earning a paltry Rs.4,914/-
per month. In Gurpreet Kaur (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed as under:
“8. Though, there is no evidence on record regarding
the income of deceased Pyara Singh, however, from
the testimony of P.W.4 - Amar Kumar, Assistant
Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, it is clear that
the deceased - Pyara Singh was regularly making the
payment of Rs.11,550/- as instalment to discharge his
loan liability towards the tractor. At this rate, the
entire loan was paid back within a year or so. That
clearly establishes the earning capacity of the
deceased. It is also the case of the appellantsclaimants that the deceased was working as a
contractor and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month.
The Tribunal adopted a balanced approach and
keeping in view factors like : (i) the payment of
monthly instalment of Rs.11,550/- towards loan of the
tractor; (ii) Maintaining a family comprising of wife,
two minor children and parents; (iii) Affording tractor
and motorcycle; (iv) that the deceased was working as
a contractor; assessed his income at Rs.25,000/- per
month.
9. In our considered view, the Tribunal's approach is
quite justified in law as well as on facts. In the
summary proceedings where the approach of the
Tribunal's determination must be in conformity with
the object of the welfare legislation, it was rightly held
that the monthly income of the deceased could not be
less than Rs.25,000/-. The reason assigned by the
High Court to reduce the monthly income of the
deceased is totally cryptic and has no rationale. The
Notification of Minimum Wages Act can be a
guiding factor only in a case where there is no
clue available to evaluate monthly income of the
deceased. Where positive evidence has been led,
no reliance on the Notification could be placed,
particularly when it was nobody's case that the
deceased was a labourer as presumed by the
High Court.”
14. With regard to agricultural income, AW-2 deposed that apart
from mining activities, her husband was also engaged in
agricultural activities and earned an additional income of
Rs.10,000/- per month. In corroboration, Jamabandi of an
agricultural land (Exhibit 26A) had been exhibited which clearly
reflects that the deceased owned 0.08 bighas of agricultural land
in joint ownership. As per the statements of AW-2, the land also
comprised of a tube well that was used for agriculture and
irrigation facilities.
15. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Shrikrishna vs
Surendra Singh and Ors.; First Appeal from Order No.83 of
2012 (decided on 25.03.2014) while determining the income of
an agriculturist observed as under:
“10. Much emphasis has been given by learned counsel
for the respondents that an agriculturalist cannot be
equated with a skilled labour. The argument advanced
by learned counsel for the respondents seems to be
misconceived. The profession of an agriculturalist
itself requires scientific knowledge in view of
recent development in the field. Knowledge,
ability and experience collectively requires for a
better production or outcome in the agriculture
work. Hence, an agriculturist cannot be equated with
unskilled labour.
16. In view of the dictionary meaning as well as the
interpretation given by Hon'ble Supreme Court keeping
in view some statutory provisions, an agriculturist
cannot be treated as an unskilled labour. A
reasonable skill is required from him to discharge
his/her obligation for better output. Although the work
of an agriculturist may not have become highly
technical keeping in view every day scientific
development in the field, yet, in this scientific era, it
requires scientific decision for sowing and reaping the
crops and managing affairs upto the stage of sale of
food-grains in the markets. Hence, in the absence of
any proof of income from an agriculturist, his notional
income for the purpose of payment of compensation
may be treated at par with the income of a skilled
person.”
16. Further, in the case of Rajinder Kaur vs. Ram Dass &
Ors.; FAO No. 4266 of 2012 (O&M) (decided on 18.03.2019),
the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while determining the income
of the deceased who was an agriculturist and also carried on the
business of transporter and milk dairy observed as under:
7. The next question, which arises for consideration is
with regard to income of the deceased. Rajinder Singh,
eyewitness of the accident, who appeared as PW1, has
stated that the deceased was in transport business and
also running a dairy farm besides being an agriculturist.
Rajinder Kaur wife of the deceased, who appeared as
PW2, had also deposed on the same terms. To
corroborate oral testimony, claimant has placed on file,
copy of the mutation Ex.P5, which shows that 1/5th
share of deceased in land measuring 130 kanals 12
marlas situated in village Uklana. However, no evidence
except the oral testimony regarding transport business
of the deceased, has come on record. A land owner
can be put in the category of skilled worker as he
has not only to cultivate the land, but also to take
care of the other agricultural process like
irrigation, fertilisers, pesticides, crop cycle,
quality of seeds, nature of soil, type of crops to be
sown etc. In the year, 2008, the minimum wages for
skilled worker (upper) were Rs.3545/- per month, as
such, income of the deceased has been rightly assessed
by the tribunal as Rs.3,600/- per month and I find no
reason to interfere with the same.”
17. The above judicial precedents consistently recognize that an
agriculturist cannot be treated at par with an unskilled labour as
his vocation entails application of knowledge and skill.
18. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, this Court is
of the considered and unambiguous opinion that the deceased’s
monthly income must be assessed by synthesising several
streams of his livelihood. The record demonstrates that the
deceased had obtained consent letters from the statutory
authority for carrying out mining activities; that he was the
registered owner of a Hydra Mob Crane for which he was
punctually discharging monthly instalment of Rs.35,170/-; and
that he simultaneously held agricultural land capable of yielding
regular income. This Court, on taking all these factors
cumulatively, concludes that the deceased was earning no less
than an amount of Rs.45,000/- per month from his mining and
agricultural ventures. This conclusion stands reinforced by the
evidence of consistent payment of licence fees for the mines as
well as repayment of the EMI for the crane loan. Accordingly, this
Court deems it proper to assess the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.45,000/- for the purposes of computation of just
compensation.
19. With regard to the amount to be awarded under the
conventional head of ‘Consortium’, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the
case of National Insurance Company Limiteds. Pranay Sethi
and Ors,; (2017) 16 SCC 680 has fixed the amount payable
under the conventional head of loss of consortium to be
Rs.40,000/-. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhru Ram;(2018) 18 SCC 130 interpreted ‘consortium’ to be
a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium,
parental consortium as well as filial consortium.
20. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the said amount
ought to be awarded to each of the appellants claimants. Thus,
appellant Nos. 2 to 6 being the children and mother of the
deceased, are also entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- each
under the head of ‘Consortium’. So far as compensation awarded
to appellant No.1 under the head of ‘Consortium’ is concerned, the
same has been rightly awarded and does not deserve any
interference.
21. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed and the
impugned judgment/award dated 23.07.2018 passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur in MAC Case No. 149/2014
(N.C.V. No. 1922/2014) is modified to the extent that the
appellants-claimants shall be entitled to the following
compensation:
1. Income per month (after addition
of future prospects (25%) and
deduction for personal and living
expenses (1/4th) in the monthly
income of Rs.45,000/-)
Rs.42,188/-
2. Loss of Income (as per the age of
the deceased i.e. 49 years, a
multiplier of 13)
42,188 x 12 x 13
=
Rs.65,81,328/-
3. Under the head of ‘Consortium’ 40,000 x 6 =
Rs.2,40,000/-
4. Under the head of ‘Funeral
Expenses’
Rs.15,000/-
5. Under the head of ‘Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
6. Total amount of compensation Rs.68,51,328/-
7. Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs.7,88,692/-
8. Enhanced amount of
compensation
Rs.68,51,328/-
- Rs.7,88,692/-
-------------
Rs.60,62,636/-
22. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @6% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment
is made. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the award amount (if not deposited yet) and the enhanced amount
of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the
same shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of this
order till actual realization. Upon deposition, the learned Tribunal
is directed to disburse the same to the claimants in terms of the
award.
23. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
No comments:
Post a Comment