The appellant/claimant in his appeal further claimed that he had been earning [pic]10,000/- p.m. by doing vegetable vending work. The High Court however, considered the loss of income at [pic]3500/- p.m. considering that the claimant did not produce any document to establish his loss of income. It is difficult for us to convince ourselves as to how a labour involved in an unorganized sector doing his own business is expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. In this regard, this Court, in the case of Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Company Limited[2], has held as under:
“13. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a Coolie and was earning [pic]4500/- per month at the time of accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of [pic]3000/- only on the assumption that wages of the labourer during the relevant period viz. in the year 2004, was [pic]100/- per day. This assumption in our view has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though Insurance Company was served, it did not choose to appear before the Court nor did it repudiated the claim of the claimant. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning a sum of [pic]3000/- p.m. Secondly, the Appellant was working as a Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant.
14. We hasten to add that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. In the present case, Appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of the labourer was between [pic]100/- to [pic]150/- per day or [pic]4500/- per month. In our view, the claim was honest and bonafide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the Appellant from [pic]4500/- to [pic]3000/- per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was [pic]4500/-.”
9. There is no reason, in the instant case for the Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence of monthly income of the appellant/claimant. On the other hand, going by the present state of economy and the rising prices in agricultural products, we are inclined to believe that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning [pic]6,500/- per month.
Supreme Court of India
Syed Sadiq Etc vs Divisional Manager,United India ... on 16 January, 2014
Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, V. Gopala Gowda
Citation;2015 ALLSCR347
Print Page
