Minimum wages of skilled workers apply where oral testimony of employment is consistent but lacks documentation.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in adopting the minimum wages of an unskilled worker as the benchmark income in the absence of absolute documentary proof of salary

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the benchmark income should be revised from the minimum wage of an unskilled worker to that of a skilled worker in Uttar Pradesh, calculated at ₹9,381/- per month

It also directed

The Court enhanced the total compensation from ₹16,76,900/- to ₹20,51,309/-, representing an increase of ₹3,74,409/-. The respondent Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 7.5% interest per annum within four weeks

01Facts

The appellants (legal representatives of the deceased, Ashok Kumar) sought enhancement of a compensation award of ₹16,76,900/- granted by the MACT

p. 1

On January 18, 2018, the deceased was killed in a motor accident involving an offending motorcycle on the Yamuna Expressway

pp. 1-2

The deceased was 37 years old and survived by five dependents

p. 2

Before the Tribunal, the appellants claimed the deceased earned ₹15,000/- per month as a helper/supervisor at M/s Kanta Enterprises, supported by a wage certificate (Ex.PW-1/2) and the testimony of the proprietor (PW-3)

pp. 2-3

However, the Tribunal rejected this evidence due to a lack of documentary corroboration (ITRs, wage registers) and assessed income based on the minimum wages of an unskilled worker in Uttar Pradesh (₹7,400/-)

pp. 2-3, 23

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal erred in adopting the minimum wages of an unskilled worker as the benchmark income in the absence of absolute documentary proof of salary

p. 3 / para. 9

ii.2. Whether the oral testimony of an employer and the personal circumstances of the deceased justify an upward revision of the benchmark income through "intelligent guesswork"

p. 19 / para. 30(C)

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 165 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, noting that claim petitions follow summary procedures and the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities rather than strict rules of evidence

p. 9

It relied on Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav (2022), which established that the inability to produce a salary certificate does not justify adopting the lowest tier of minimum wages; instead, courts must use "guesswork" not detached from reality

p. 3, 7

Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) emphasized preserving the family's standard of living

p. 5

Rajwati @ Rajjo v. United India Insurance (2022) affirmed that oral testimony of family and co-workers can substantiate income even if passbooks or formal records are missing

pp. 8-9

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 165 Section 169

04Reasoning

The Court analyzed the testimony of PW-3 (the employer), noting that while he failed to produce wage registers or ITRs during cross-examination, his statement that wages were paid in cash is typical for the informal sector

pp. 21-23

The Court formulated several "guideposts," determining that in the informal sector, the lack of an appointment letter should not prejudice the claimant, and courts should consider the nature of work and the deceased's lifestyle (e.g., commuting by motorcycle)

pp. 18-20

While the Court found PW-3’s testimony insufficient to prove the full ₹15,000/- claim, it held that the deceased was clearly engaged in a "private job" as evidenced by the FIR and PW-1's testimony

pp. 23-24

Consequently, the Court found the Tribunal’s classification of the deceased as "unskilled" to be too low and revised the status to "skilled worker" based on the nature of his employment and circumstances

p. 24