The court stated that if positive evidence was presented, the notification could not be relied upon, especially when it was not related to one that the deceased was a factor as the Supreme Court had assumed.
The Supreme Court of India, on 27 September, decided that while the computation of compensation under the notification of the Minimum Wage Act could be an indicative factor only if there was no evidence available to assess the monthly income of the deceased. The court stated that if positive evidence was presented, the notification could not be relied upon, especially when it was not related to one that the deceased was a factor as the Supreme Court had assumed.
The Council of Judges Syria Kant heard and M. It has been significantly reduced to 16,57,600/- Rs.
On 12 November 2014, when Pyara Singh was riding his motorcycle number PB-39E2372 with his friend Mukhtiyar Singh (sailboat racer), a JCB, being driven by Defendant No. 2 – Sanjay came from the other side of the road and crashed into the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, Piyara Singh sustained multiple injuries which led to his death instantly.
His friend Mukhtiyar Singh was also seriously injured. 5. There is no dispute that the deceased was 25 years old and was healthy and lively. He stated that he worked as a contractor to raise the land and was earning 50,000 rupees a month. It was also recorded that the deceased had purchased a tractor for which he obtained a loan of Rs 3,90,533 from Kotak Mahindra Bank. The deceased was regularly paying the monthly installment of Rs 11,550 for the jar loan from 10 March 2014 onwards and the loan was fully discharged by 24 March 2015 with the payment being made even after his death. 6. Taking into account the rate at which EMI was paid, the court held that the deceased should charge a minimum of Rs 25,000 per month before his death in the accident.
After taking th of the deceased’s monthly income from personal expenses, the court applied a multiplier of 18 and valued the total compensation at Rs 4,375,000. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court overlooked the factors on which the Court relied to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs 25,000 per month.
Supreme Court decision
The High Court came to the conclusion that the mere fact that the deceased had paid the loan installments could not in itself be evidence that the funds actually represented his income or could form the basis for assessing the income of the deceased at Rs 25,000/- per month. Taking into consideration the notification issued by the state of Haryana, which fixed minimum wages in due course, the Supreme Court assessed the income of the deceased at Rs 7,000/- per month and on this basis, as stated above, the compensation was reduced.
The court noted that “The court’s approach is fully justified in law as well as in facts. In the summary proceedings where the approach of the court’s decision should be in conformity with the subject matter of welfare legislation, it was rightly asserted that the monthly income of the deceased could not be less than Rs 25,000/-. The reason given by the Supreme Court for reducing the monthly income of the deceased is completely vague and has no justification. The Minimum Wage Notification Act can only be a guiding factor if there is no evidence available to assess the deceased’s monthly income. Wherever positive evidence has been provided, the notification cannot be relied upon, especially when no one’s case was that the deceased was a factor as the Supreme Court had assumed.”
The court overturned the Supreme Court’s decision and reinstated the court’s ruling.