USHA BABBAR Vs. TEJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the award dated 11/10/2001 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,53,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum to the claimants.

(2.) Ms. Manjeet Chawla counsel for the appellants has assailed the said award on quantum of compensation. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 13 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 15 should have been applied. It was urged by the counsel that the tribunal erred in not considering future prospects while computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the deceased would have earned much more in near future as he was of 43 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 15-20 yrs had he not met with the accident. It was also urged by the counsel that the tribunal did not consider the fact that due to high rates of inflation the deceased would have earned much more in near future and the tribunal also failed in appreciating the fact that even the minimum wages are revised twice in an year and hence, the deceased would have earned much more in his life span. The counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding just and fair compensation towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium, mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The appellant no. 1 widow of the deceased deposed as PW3 that the deceased was working as a Material Supervisor with M/s. Ashoka Manufacturing Co. and was earning Rs. 3,100/-pm and used to give Rs. 2,500/- pm for household expenses. She proved vide Ex. PW3/11, letter of appointment of the deceased. But the tribunal in the absence of cogent evidence assessed the income of the deceased in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act. No future prospects were considered by the tribunal while computing compensation. It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions regarding the future prospects of the deceased are of no help to the claimants in the absence of any reliable evidence being brought on record. However, it has been the consistent view of this court that whenever aid of Minimum Wages Act is taken while computing income, then increase in minimum wages should also be considered. It is well settled that future prospects are not akin to increase in minimum wages. To neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, the minimum wages are increased from time to time. A perusal of the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act show that to neutralize increase in inflation and cost of living, minimum wages virtually double after every 10 years. For instance, minimum wages of skilled labourers as on 1.1.1980 was Rs. 320/- per month and same rose to Rs. 1,083/- per month in the year 1990. Meaning thereby, from year 1980 to year 1990, there has been an increase of nearly 238% in the minimum wages. Thus, it could safely be assumed that income of the deceased would have doubled in the next 10 years.