HETALBEN GHANSHYAMBHAI PATEL Vs. RAJESHBHAI M. PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is given to the judgment and award dtd. 26/3/2018 passed by the MACT (Aux), Kheda at Nadiad in MACP no.831 of 2013.

(2.) The ground raised is that the income has not been considered in accordance to the minimum wages schedule and consortium amount has not been granted as per the decision in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Mr. Bhalodi, referring to the facts of the case, states that the deceased was working as driver in J.K. Transport Company. Mr. Bhalodi submits that since the concerned person could not be examined, but to satisfy the fact prima facie of he being the driver, it could not be proved. Mr. Bhalodi submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken judicial notice of the said fact and should have at least considered him as a skilled worker and could have granted money in accordance to the minimum wages schedule and thus, states that the income assessed is on lower side. Further, the consortium money was required to be granted in accordance to the decision in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), since the deceased left dependents being widow, two minor children and aged parents.

(3.) Countering the arguments, Advocates Mr. Thomas as well as Ms. Bhaya for both the insurance Companies submit that since no income was proved, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.4,000.00 per month considering as the income of the deceased, which is just and reasonable and thus, urged that the same be considered.