GURLAL Vs. BALJINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. Since a limited issue has been raised, further detailed reference to the facts would not be necessary.

(2.) Counsel for the appellants has argued that the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the income as Rs.4600.00 per month because as per the Schedule attached to the Minimum Wages Act in the State of Haryana for the period 1.7.2013 onwards, the minimum wages for an unskilled labourer were Rs.5341/- say Rs.5500.00. Counsel for respondent No.2 does not dispute this. I take the income as Rs.5500.00 per month.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants has further argued that the Tribunal erred in not granting any future prospects. As per him, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, 40% had to be awarded on account of future prospects. Counsel for the Insurance Company is not in a position to deny this also. Consequently, I direct that future prospects of 40% be granted in this case.