RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. BEANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of FAO No.2110 of 2016, FAO No.2288 of 2017, FAO No.5882 of 2018, FAO No.6845 of 2016, FAO No.1652 of 2017, FAO No.3757 of 2018 and FAO No.916 of 2018 alongwith XOBJC No.163-CII of 2018.

(2.) All these appeals are taken up together for hearing as one common primary question is raised in all these appeals by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Companies viz., 'whether in a case, where no documentary evidence is led by the claimants to prove the income of a deceased or injured as the case may be, it is the minimum wages as fixed by the State under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which should be assessed as the income of the deceased/injured or the rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of the area, to be paid in contingencies to workers appointed by the government on contract at that particular point of time (hereinafter referred to, as the 'DC Rates')?' Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Companies vehemently argue that in a situation where the claimants fail to lead any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased or injured as the case may be, the Court/Tribunal should not assess income to be more than minimum wage as may be fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. It is contended that in case the DC Rates in a particular district are followed, there would be a loss of uniformity in assessment of income of the deceased/injured. It is submitted that DC Rates vary from district to district and there is no structured manner or basis for fixation of the said wages. Moreover, the DC Rates are not reflective of the minimum wage which may be prevalent at a particular point of time. DC Rates, it is submitted, reflect the wages which are paid to the workers who are appointed on contract with the Government Departments. These are the rates which are available to be paid to the persons employed in contingencies by the government departments/ agencies. It is further submitted that minimum wages as notified by the State provide uniformity. Moreover, the same are subject to periodic revisions and are applicable across the board in the unorganised sector. Therefore, it is only the minimum wages as notified by the State which should be the sole criterion for assessing income of the deceased/injured as the case may be.

(3.) Learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand with equal vehemence argued that minimum wages as notified by the State Government should not be the criterion at all for assessing income of the deceased or injured. DC Rates, it is contended offer a better criterion or guideline for such an assessment. Moreover, the Motor Vehicles Act, being a beneficial legislation, it is the DC Rates which should be taken in consideration while assessing income of the deceased/injured as they are a better indicator of the income actually earned by persons following various vocations. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.