PILOMINAL Vs. R MADHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants, who are aggrieved by the award have filed this appeal claiming a further amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation. THE total claim made by them in the original Petition was 1,50,000/-. THE Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 30,000/-.

(2.) THE evidence of the first petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, is that her husband is working under a contractor and earning Rs. 1000/- per month. According to her, he used to give the said amount to her. But, the Tribunal has not accepted that version as she has not produced any document in support thereof. She has not examined the employer of her husband. THE Tribunal has taken the view that the deceased could have earned Rs. 300/- only per month. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that a minimum which would be earned by a worker under a contractor would be not less than Rs. 15/- per day and the deceased would have earned at least 15/- per day and the deceased would have earned at least Rs. 450/- per month. In the absence of any specific acceptable evidence we are not inclined to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal, though there is some force in the contention of the appellant's counsel.

(3.) THE deceased was aged about 40. He would have continued to work at least till he attained the age of 65. THE Supreme Court is Jyotsa Dev v. State of Assam (1987 ACJ. 172(SC) held that the longevity of an Indian is generally 70 and compensation could be worked out on that basis. However, we prefer to take the view that the deceased would have earned upto the age of 65 and work out the compensation accordingly.