Daily Wage Assessment Based on Unchallenged Oral Evidence and Submissions Within Minimum Wage Standards is Sustainable

On April 24, 2017, the deceased, Sureshbhai Meena, aged 25, was working as a cleaner in a Tata truck (GJ-24-V-5519)

Due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver (Opponent No. 1), the truck turned turtle, resulting in the deceased’s death

The claimants (widow and others) filed a petition under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation, asserting the deceased earned Rs. 300 per day

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.-VI), Mahesana, awarded Rs. 22,94,200/- with 9% interest

The Insurance Company appealed, primarily contesting the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased's monthly income

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 9,000/- in the absence of documentary evidence and by relying on RTI information

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and liable for modification

The court applied the principles of "just compensation" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It relied on the doctrine of assessment of income based on the Minimum Wages Act as notified by the State Government for skilled/unskilled workers in the absence of formal proof of income

The court applied the evidentiary principle that undisputed testimony in an affidavit-in-examination-in-chief, which remains unchallenged during cross-examination, can be accepted as proof of facts

The Appellant argued that the Tribunal wrongly treated RTI information as a circular to fix the income at Rs. 9,000/- per month

However, the High Court observed that the claimants had consistently pleaded a daily income of Rs. 300 (amounting to Rs. 9,000/- per month)

The widow (Claimant No. 1) filed an affidavit (Exh. 21) affirming this income; significantly, the Insurance Company failed to challenge this specific figure during her cross-examination

The Court also noted that even if the state-notified minimum wage for a skilled worker (Rs. 8,388/-) were used, the difference was negligible

Thus, the court found the Tribunal's assessment to be a reasonable estimation of the deceased's earning capacity at the time of the accident.

The Court held that the assessment of Rs. 9,000/- per month was not erroneous as the testimony regarding income remained unchallenged in cross-examination

The Court directed the Tribunal to disburse the entire awarded amount to the claimants after due verification and ordered the transmission of any statutory deposits to the concerned Tribunal