Smt Irshad Begum & Anr. vs Sh Pappu & Ors.

ANISH DAYAL, J: (ORAL)

This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dwarka Courts (hereinafter, ‘Tribunal’) by order dated 20^th September 2022 in MACT No.1773/2016 whereby Rs.12,26,000/- was awarded at an interest of 9% p.a.

The accident occurred on 22.09.2015 at about 2.30 p.m., when the deceased/Mohd. Aleem along with his friend Meeraj was travelling on a motorcycle bearing no. UP-26F-1511 from Pilibhit to Puranpur. The offending vehicle being driven by respondent no.1/driver came from the opposite side and hit the deceased/Mohd. Aleem. As a result of this, both occupants of the motorcycle fell down and sustained grievous injuries and the deceased/Mohd. Aleem ultimately succumbed to his injuries.

Mr. S.N. Parashar, counsel appearing for appellants/claimants has raised a single issue relating to the benchmark income which was taken as the minimum wages of an unskilled worker at Rs.7,380/-. He states that documents had been filed by claimant showing that he was employed as a Field Engineer with M/S LG Customer Service Network earning Rs.15,000/-per month supported by salary certificate and employment records.

However, the Tribunal in paragraph 12 of the impugned award was of the opinion that the said documents have not been proved, particularly, by the signatory of said documents.

Document in question is an appointment letter dated 10^th November 2014 issued by M/S LG Customer Care Network, Pilibhit, U.P. to deceased stating that he had been employed with them on a consolidated salary of Rs.15,000/- per month for the first one year, after which a revision would be worked out based on his performance, the joining date being 25^th December 2014. The same was exhibited as Ex.PW2/2. Ex. PW2/3 (Colly.) were a set of salary slips, also issued by M/S LG Customer Care Network. Sh. Mohd. Jubair, PW2, who was working as a Supervisor in LG Electronic India Pvt. Ltd. through the Customer Care Network at A-10, Awas Vikas, Pilibhit, U.P. deposed that Ex.PW2/2 was the original offer of employment given to deceased. He further stated that he was not aware, whether it was given to the deceased or not and further stated that it did not bear the designation or stamp of Sh. Nazim, owner of the company.

Subsequently, he had also stated that Ex. PW2/3 (Colly.) being the salary slips were prepared fresh as original record and were not available in the Company and did not bear the designation or stamp of Sh. Nazim.

In this light, the Tribunal was not inclined to accept the assertion of appellants/claimants that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month on account of his employment.

The Court after having reviewed the documentation and hearing the parties, is not inclined to accept the plea of appellants/claimants or differ with the Tribunal on this issue. However, instead of granting minimum wages of an unskilled worker, minimum wages of a skilled worker could have been granted, considering that certain documents had been placed on record, along with testimony of PW1, mother of the deceased, who stated that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month doing a permanent private job as a Field Engineer at M/s LG Customer Care Network, Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit, U.P. Even though the evidence furnished by appellants/claimants was not robust, the documents itself would indicate that deceased was engaged in the work of a customer care agency. This certainly would require ‘skill’.

Further, Mr. Parashar, counsel has placed on record an additional document, being the salary details as available on LG Customer Service Network. The said is extracted as under:

Mr. Parashar, counsel responsibly states that this detail is still available on the Customer Service Network of LG and could also be verified by respondent no.3/Insurance Company.

Taking into account these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that minimum wages of a skilled worker, at least, should have been considered for the deceased, which is Rs.9,575/-, as informed to the Court

Counsel for respondent no.3/Insurance Company does object to the same, however, in the Court’s opinion, this objection is not merited, considering there is reasonable evidence on record that he was working with LG (electronics company) in the Customer Care Network and there was no evidence on record to state that he was an unskilled worker, without any skill whatsoever.

A similar view has been taken by this Court in Dimple @ Dimple Verma & Ors. v. Afasar Ali & Ors (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd) 2026:DHC:608, where benchmark income of deceased was reassessed to be that of a skilled worker instead of an unskilled worker, by placing reliance on an identity card issued by the employer of deceased and Certificate of Participation of the deceased in a training programme. Additionally, these documents were presented by the wife of deceased, as proof to her testimony that the deceased was earning Rs. 22,000/- per month, contrary to the minimum wage of Rs. 14,000/- adduced by the Tribunal.

In the case at hand, it is also noted that the deceased was a matriculate and his matriculation certificate was appended as Ex.PW1/6.

In these circumstances, the appeal is allowed.

The revised computation is as under:

Enhanced amount will be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of 4 weeks and shall be disbursed as per the directions to be given by the Tribunal.

List before the Tribunal on 25^th February 2026.

Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the appellants.

Copy of this Judgment be sent to the concerned MACT.

Appeal stands disposed of with above directions. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.