1. This misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant against the impugned award 26.6.2019 passed by 16TH Additional MACT, Sagar in MACC No. 275/2015.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that injured Brijesh was working as conductor in Mini Bus bearing Reg. No. MP 20PA 0528. On 27.4.2015 at about 8 PM near village Mahgava driver/non applicant of the bus drove the bus rashly and negligently and dashed the tractor bearing reg. no. MP 20 AA 8436 and thereafter, bus turned turtle. In the accident appellant sustained serious injuries. FIR was lodged against non applicant/respondent no.1 driver of the bus. Claim petition was filed claiming compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant pressed only two points;-

i. Income of the injured has been assessed to Rs.5,000/- is in lower side. The income of the deceased should have been as provided in circular issued under minimum wages Act,1948 prevailing on the 27.04.2015, the date of accident and

ii. An addition in the head of future prospects should be provided as per directions contained in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

On these grounds learned counsel for the appellant urged to allow this appeal and enhance the compensation.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ insurance company submits that award has been passed keeping in view the evidence available on record. No interference is needed by way of this appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute that as per on the date of accident circular issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for unskilled labourers is fixed as Rs.6239/- per month. Income assessed by learned Claims Tribunal is Rs.5,000/- which is against the circular issued under Minimum Wages Act.

6.1. In Sapna and Others vs. Mangilal and Another, 2021 ACJ 957, Coordinate Bench of this Court in para No.8 has held as under:-

“8.Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the appellant had deposed before the tribunal that the deceased was earningRs.8,000/- per month, but no document in support of which was produced. The tribunal had noted that the deceased was about 20 years of age and was a labourer, therefore, considering the minimum wages and dearnessallowance for the relevant period, the tribunal hasxassessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6000/-. No notification/circular of the concerned Labour Officer was taken note of by the tribunal while mentioning the daily wages of Rs.6000/-. The circular dated 7/4/2018 issued by the Labour Officer, Barwani applicable to the period from 01/4/2018 to 30/9/2018 produced by the appellants reveals that the monthly wages on the basis of daily wages along with dearness allowance fixed by the concerned Labour Officer was Rs.7325/-. Hence, the tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income on the basis of the said circular.”

6.2 Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Bhim Singh vs. Jagmelsingh in MA No.5350 of 2022 dated 07th July, 2023, Shankar and Others vs Dinesh and Others in MA No.2057 of 2021 dated 08th September, 2023 and Sohanlal and Others vs. Noorasingh and Others in MA No.7014 of 2019 dated 22.08.2023 has also determined income on the basis of minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

6.3 Thus, from principles laid down in above cases, it is evident that Coordinate Benches of this Court has consistently determined the income of the victim of motor accident on the basis of Minimum Wages duly notified under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 where no fixed income could be proved.

6.4 It is correct that as per section 3 & other provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages thereunder are fixed & notified for employees employed in an employment specified in the Act, i.e. in respect of scheduled employment under the Act. But, in view of principles laid down in decisions referred to in preceding paras, in this court's considered opinion, in absence of other evidence on record, to obviate uncertainty & for sake of reasonable uniformity & consistency, it would be just & proper to apply yardstick of Minimum Wages duly notified under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

6.5 In view of section 57 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, judicial notice can be taken of Minimum Wages duly notified under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Hence, the same need not to be proved separately.

6.6 In the light of exposition of law in the judgments as referred hereinabove, the procedure adopted by the learned Claims Tribunal for assessing the income of the injured which is based merely on surmises is incorrect and cannot be approved.

7. Thus contention raised on behalf of the appellant is accepted and income of injured is fixed as Rs.6239/-.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has further urged for payment under the head of future prosepcts @40% as looking to the age of injured.

9. Amount towards future prospect has not been awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal without giving any reason.

10. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. decided on 9th December, 2022 in Civil Appeal No.9070-9071 of 2022 has observed as under :-

“18 It is a well settled position of law that in cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future prospects. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that “just compensation” must be interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant in the same position as he was before the accident took place.”

11. Accordingly, contention raised on this behalf is also accepted in view of directions contained in para 59.4 of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) : which is quoted below-

“59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”

12. In view of the above appellant is entitled for 25% of future prospects as his age has been assessed by learned Claims Tribunal 40 years in para 39 of the impugned award. Thus appellant is entitled for following amount-

13. Thus appellant is entitled in the head of loss of future earning Rs. 9,82,650/- as against the Rs.6,30,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Appellant is also entitled for the amount in the other heads as assessed and awarded by the Learned Claims Tribunal. Compensation is enhanced by Rs,3,52,650/- over and above the amount already awarded by Learned Claims Tribunal.

14. Resultantly, appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Since the appellants/claimants have valued the appeal to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- only and paid court fees accordingly. The amount of compensation has been enhanced by Rs.3,52,650/- therefore, claimants within 60 days from the date of order by this Court will pay requisite court fees on rest of amount i.e. Rs.1,52,650/-. In case certificate of payment of additional court fee is not filed before the learned Claims Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of order of this court, the appellants/claimants shall not be entitled to get the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation.

15. Parties shall bear their own costs.