The bench of justice Surya Kant and MM Sundaresh while setting aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that when there is positive evidence regarding the income of the deceased is available, reliance cannot be placed on the notification of Minimum Wages.

The Court held that "The Notification of Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor only in a case where there is no clue available to evaluate monthly income of the deceased. Where positive evidence has been led, no reliance on the Notification could be placed, particularly when it was nobody’s case that the deceased was a labourer as presumed by the High Court."

The Supreme Court observed that the deceased was a capable man who was maintaining his family and observed that "The Tribunal adopted a balanced approach and keeping in view factors like (i) the payment of monthly instalment of Rs.11,550/- towards loan of the tractor; (ii) Maintaining a family comprising of wife, two minor children and parents; (iii) Affording tractor and motorcycle; (iv) that the deceased was working as a contractor; assessed his income at Rs.25,000/- per month. In our considered view, the Tribunal’s approach is quite justified in law as well as on facts. In the summary proceedings where the approach of the Tribunal’s determination must be in conformity with the object of the welfare legislation, it was rightly held that the monthly income of the deceased could not be less than Rs.25,000/-."

The facts as narrated by the Apex Court are that Pyara Singh is the husband, father and son of the claimants. on 12.11.2014 he was driving a motorcycle and Mukhtiar Singh was sitting behind him. A JCB coming from the opposite came and crashed into the motorcycle resulting in the death of Pyara Singh.

The Court observed that Praya Singh was 25 years old, hale, and healthy and working as a contractor for the lifting of earth and earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. He purchase a tractor and took a loan of Rs. 3,90,553/- on EMI of Rs. 11,550/- per month for three years and paid that entire loan in one year's time. The Court observed that keeping in mind the pace at which the EMIs were paid and also that he was maintaining his family, the Trial Court rightly considered his income to beRs. 25,000/- per month and assesses total compensation of Rs. 43,75,000/-.

The Court observed that "The High Court came to the conclusion that the mere fact
that the deceased had paid installments of the loan could not itself be evidence that the money actually represented his income or can form the basis for assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per month. Taking into consideration the Notification issued by the State of Haryana, fixing the minimum wage at the relevant time, the High Court assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, and on this premise, as stated above, the compensation was reduced."

"In our considered view, the Tribunal’s approach is quite justified in law as well as on facts. In the summary proceedings where the approach of the Tribunal’s determination must be in conformity with the object of the welfare legislation, it was rightly held that the monthly income of the deceased could not be less than Rs.25,000/-." added the bench.

Case Details:-

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6981-82 OF 2022
GURPREET KAUR & ORS. … APPELLANTS
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

Read the Complete judgment on the link below:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/42847/42847_2019_13_8_38590_Order_27-Sep-2022.pdf