Anju Devi And Others v. Geeta Ram And Others
-1-
Reserved on:- 11.12.2025
! "
#$% & ! "
' ()'
* ** * '
!"# $ %%%% * * ' & ' ( ) *
+,+--+-. (
$ ' ( /
&00
1
&2334
5 ' ( 67
)
&220.8-9" )* :0;
1
-++!-+-, -
<
* ( ' (
<
(
/
( * '** * ) *)
* ! '
"
( ' ( *
(
-2- '
( *
(
* ,
!"# $ * )
* ) '
. #
*
* ( *))+ '
* 0 = 6( $
Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another ,- !!&./*#01%22
3
* *
"
>30
!"#$% &$ !"#' % '( !"#) %
* +
),-
-3- . !%
/ 0
+
),- ),-
* * * * * * 42. * !'% !
2 %
"3! ")&, &" &) % 4 "5 &($, 4 "($"$) 4 ")$(', 4 "''"') 4 "$'(),
-4- 4 "")")) 4 6 )((, 4 5("() 4 )((5,
8 = 6( $
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. ,- !
4. /*/ !3 *
&00&0!" &03
1
&233
* )
"
47
) ?
@ 4A7
) )
@ 4$7 )
(
) @ 47 ( )
?*
@ 4B7 C
)
)* (@ " ? '
)
"
>52. 7 conventional heads 8 0 + 8 &) ,,, 8 "
,, ,,, 8"
,, ,,,
8 0
1 :
;
7
-5-
<
+
8 ") ,,,
8 ', ,,, 8 ") ,,,
= *
",- *
> > > > > 59.3 * ),- 0 ',
-6- $,- ',),
+ ),(,
")- 7
59.4 + !%
',- ',
7 &)- ',), ",- ),(,
59.5 / $,$&1 ? @
59.6.
1 ? A '& 0
59.7
59.8 8
8 ") ,,, 8', ,,, 8") ,,,
",-
-73 = 6( $
'%50%%$2% 0#%6)707182 % %0%$7%299 %0 192, !
-
.
* :!3
)*%$%80%-2#%. %%6*197-*#%.
*) )
"
C21 7 = 1 9
< + D D D D D D D D
*
&"
"
Spousal consortium
D
0 D
&"
& Parental consortium D
D
&"
$ Filial consortium 7
40 E 40
-8-
4? 7 +
7 7
D D 1 9 + 8 ', ,,,
2
*
*
(,+
)
*
(
( ) )
,+ (
) " B?! &+
*
*
(
/ *
( )-.+++9" '
* ( ? D"- deposed that deceased was earning around Rs.25,000/- per month by working as cook. She has also placed on filed salary certificate (Mark P-1) issued by Mr. Gursahib Singh (Contractor), wherein it is mentioned that Suresh Ram (since deceased) was working as a cook and getting Rs.25,000/- as salary. The same has not be proved on file as the person
-9who issued this certificate has not been examined as a witness in this case. The claimants have also examined PW-4 Venketesh, Manager of SBI, Sector-1, Panchkula to prove bank account statement Ex.P-16 of deceased Suresh Ram. = * ' ( ) ) ( /
* *
-.+++9" (
E
(-+-+
-+-& ) -+-&
(-+-&
< /
* )
/ ( )
=
&+2-,-,9" && Merely because claimants were unable to produce any other documentary evidence to show monthly income of deceased, same does not justify discarding the salary certificate (Mark P-1) and bank statement (Ex.P-16) which clearly shows that
(* / )
/ * )-.+++9" 12.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as per the minimum wages prescribed for an unskilled labourer i.e. Rs.10,924.24/-per month. Even though no other documentary evidence except the salary certificate (Mark P-1) and bank statement (Ex.P-16) of the deceased was produced by the claimants, still it is pertinent to note that the deceased was stated to be working in an unorganised sector, therefore, the formal documentation of earning is not always maintained, in view of this, the Ld. Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.10,924.24/- per month. Support for this conclusion can also be drawn from the judgment rendered by this Court in FAO2822-2006, titled as Tripta Rani and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another, decided on 15.10.2024. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-
-1010. Though no documentary evidence was submitted by the claimants, still it is pertinent to note that the deceased was working in an unorganised sector, therefore, the formal documentation of earning is not always maintained, in view of this, the Ld. Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month. Support for this conclusion can also be drawn from the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, 2021 ACJ 2554, wherein it has been held as under:- "Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show monthly income of deceased, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing income. No reason to discard oral evidence of wife of deceased who deposed that deceased was earning around Rs.15000/- per month Deceased aged about 32 years on date of accident and..."
11. In view of the facts and legal principles outlined hereinabove, the income of Rs.3000/- as determined by the Ld. Tribunal appears to be understated. Consequently, upon due consideration of the oral evidence on recod, it would be just and proper to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.8000/- per month. This assessment in my view, would better serve the ends of justice."
13.
Be that as it may, it is trite that cook falls under the category of skilled labour. In view of the above referred to judgments and facts & circumstances of the case, this court in the interest of justice is inclined to assess the notional income of the deceased as of a skilled worker i.e. Rs.12,193/- (rounding of to Rs.12,500) per month.
-1114.
A further perusal of the award shows that the amount awarded under the heads of Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses and Loss of Consortium is on the lower side. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court. ) * &. # *
*
*( = 6( $
(
) * ' *
+,+--+-.
) ' "
" "
Sr.
No.
Heads Compensation Awarded & #
&-.++9"
- C
!&-.9"4&-.++F-.;7 !
* ?
&9, !2+89"4&.0-.F&9,7 , '
#
&&8&39"4&.0-."!2+87 .
&.
-&+2-,+9"4&&8&3F&-F&.7
B
&3&.+9"
C B? &3&.+9"
$ -,-+++9"
,3,++?,
,3,++?& 1%$0#2%17
2 :;
4;"<!=
17 * ( ' (
&;&/;"4 =
9%%01
2 :;&!;&/ = - :;
4;"<!
&;&/;"4 .
&0
( = 6( $ Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma ! &:
4/
R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation - ! ."
-12- *#01%22 !4; "
) :2;
)
H
&8 '# $ " !
)* * ' ( *
*
) '' (
(
)*
9
(
' ( *
+,+--+-.' 9
( /
' ( &3 # *
&3+8-+-, CE &03-
-++8 # $
(
) ) ( $
&2 )
47
! " -* * '.
D / )9 " / ) / ) D ( I9