- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,250/- per month but since no positive proof of income was led, the income of Rs.15,000/- per annum was taken as notional income. This obviously is not a correct position of law. The High Court accepted the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. According to us, the income assessed by the High Court is on the lower side. The accident happened on 02.01.2001. The Tribunal and the High Court held that no proof of income has been produced to show that the deceased was alleged to be a carpenter. We fail to understand what proof a carpenter can lead except to lead oral evidence.
(3.) Keeping in view the fact that the accident took place in 2001 and the deceased was a carpenter, it would not be unjustified to assess his income at Rs.200/- per day. It is true that carpenter may not get work every day, hence, we assess the income at Rs.5000/- per month. Adding 40% for future prospects i.e. Rs.2,000/-, the total income works out to Rs.7,000/-. Deducting 1/5 for personal expenses, keeping in view a large number of dependents, the datum figure comes out to Rs.5,600/- per month or Rs.67,200/- per year. Applying multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs.10,75,200/-. Rs.70,000/- is added towards other non-conventional heads as laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. The total compensation comes out to Rs.11,45,200/-.;