- (1.)The claimant-petitioners lay challenge to the following findings returned by the Tribunal in computing the monthly income of the deceased which reads as under:
"20. The claimant No.1(P.W.1), in her evidence on affidavit, has stated that before death, her husband was a good mason by profession and in that capacity he used to earn Rs.10,000.00 (rupees ten thousand) per month. There is absolutely no documentary evidence on record in proof of nature of profession and quantum of monthly earnings of the victim. Simply on the basis of a solitary statement made by P.W.1, without her evidence being corroborated by any independent piece of evidence it cannot be said with certainty that before death, the victim was a mason by profession and in that capacity he used to earn Rs.10,000.00 per month. In this context, it would be advantageous for me if I follow the guidelines of our Hon'ble High Court issued vide Notification dtd. 09/01/17 where no proof of income of the injured/deceased is submitted. Keeping reliance upon the above said guidelines of our Hon'ble High Court, the victim can be placed in the category of "un-skilled worker" and accordingly, his income is assessed at Rs.5,000.00 per month."

(2.)Noticeably, income computed is @ Rs.5000.00 per month.
(3.)In the claim petition. Claimant No.1 pleaded that her husband deceased Kanta Debbarma, aged 35 years, was working as a mason and having an income of Rs.10,000.00 per month, which he contributed for the upkeeping of the family. Such averments stand refuted by the insurer. In the evidence, it is seen that the claimant has reiterated such facts and the insurer has cross-examined her as also the other witness on this aspect. It is a matter of record that save and except for ocular version of two witnesses, no documentary evidence of proof of income was led. It is in this backdrop, the Tribunal proceeded to quantify the income by taking advantage of notification dtd. 9/1/2017 issued by this Court. Significantly, the said notification was issued by this Court, for the purposes of computing the income of the deceased/injured in the cases which were required to be dealt with in the proceedings before the Lok Adalat. It is a matter of record that the insurer therein namely, the United India Insurance Company Limited, (respondent No.2) is a party to such proceeding. In the instant case, as has come on record, the nature of work (i.e. a mason) which the deceased was carrying out, undisputedly was that of a skilled worker, as such, it is hear that the Tribunal erred in computing the income @ Rs.5000.00 per month, whereas as per notification, for the accident took place after 31/12/2010, it ought to have been Rs.6000.00 per month.
;