-
by Admin
19 February 2026 9:36 AM
“It would be wholly unrealistic to assume that a person paying EMI exceeding ₹35,000 could have been subsisting on a meagre income of ₹4,914 per month.” - In a notable judgment Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur ruled in favour of the dependents of a deceased miner and agriculturist, drastically enhancing the compensation from ₹7.88 lakhs to ₹68.51 lakhs, thereby correcting what the Court termed an “unrealistic assessment of income” by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The case arose from a fatal motor accident that occurred on 9th January 2014, when Dhalaram, aged 49, was hit by a rashly driven Bolero vehicle while riding his motorcycle. The impact proved fatal, leaving behind a widow, children, and an aged mother. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of ₹7,88,692/- as compensation under the assumption that the deceased was an unskilled labourer earning just ₹4,914/- per month.
The claimants challenged the award, arguing that the deceased was a mine operator, agriculturalist, and owner of heavy machinery, earning no less than ₹45,000 per month.
“Ability to Pay High EMIs is Circumstantial Proof of Earning Capacity” — High Court Sets Aside Tribunal’s Notional Income
“A man discharging monthly EMI exceeding ₹35,000 while maintaining a family of six could not possibly be earning a paltry ₹4,914 per month.”
Justice Rekha Borana, presiding over the appeal in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3011/2018, held that the Tribunal erred gravely by ignoring credible financial and statutory records that revealed the deceased's substantial income from mining operations and agriculture.
The Court observed: “The ability of an individual to repay heavy loan instalments on a regular basis presupposes the existence of an income substantially higher than the liability discharged… the financial outgo evidenced by bank transactions constitutes strong circumstantial proof of the deceased’s earning capacity.”
Documents such as:
Crane registration certificate (Exh. 22A)
Loan repayment statements from HDFC Bank (Exh. 23)
Mining consent orders from Rajasthan Pollution Control Board (Exhs. 17 & 19)
...were found sufficient to conclude that the deceased was actively engaged in lawful, income-generating mining activities.
“Tribunals Must Not Blindly Resort to Minimum Wages When Reliable Indicators Exist” — Court Applies Gurpreet Kaur Principle
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1778], the Court emphasized that minimum wage notifications are a fallback tool, not a default metric when there is positive financial evidence available.
The Apex Court had held: “The Notification of Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor only in a case where there is no clue available to evaluate monthly income of the deceased. Where positive evidence has been led, no reliance on the Notification could be placed.”
Following this, the Rajasthan High Court assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹45,000, noting that ₹35,170 was being regularly paid as EMI, a financial commitment that could not be sustained by someone earning below ₹5,000.
“An Agriculturist Is Not an Unskilled Labourer” — Court Recognizes Agricultural Income and Expertise
The Court also dealt with the Tribunal’s oversight in ignoring the deceased’s agricultural income, supported by Jamabandi records (Exh. 26A) showing land ownership and irrigation facilities.
Citing Shrikrishna v. Surendra Singh (Allahabad HC, 2014) and Rajinder Kaur v. Ram Dass (P&H HC, 2019), the Court stated:
“An agriculturist cannot be equated with unskilled labour. The vocation entails application of knowledge and skill… a reasonable skill is required from him to discharge his obligations for better output.”
Accordingly, the Court included agricultural income in its overall estimation, concluding that ₹45,000/month was a fair, realistic assessment of the deceased’s earnings.
“Consortium Is Not Limited to the Widow” — Court Grants ₹2.40 Lakhs to Deceased’s Children and Aged Mother
The Court also corrected the Tribunal’s under-award under the head of ‘Consortium’, expanding the entitlement in line with Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram.
While the Tribunal had awarded ₹40,000 to the widow alone, the Court granted:
₹40,000 each to five additional dependents — the four children and the deceased’s mother — acknowledging the “parental and filial consortium” principles enunciated by the Supreme Court.
The total compensation under ‘Consortium’ was thus raised to ₹2,40,000/-, a sixfold increase from the Tribunal’s award.
Final Compensation Enhanced by ₹60.62 Lakhs — Insurance Company Directed to Pay with Interest
Having revised the income, multiplier, and consortium entitlement, the High Court recalculated the compensation as follows:
Loss of Income: ₹65,81,328/-
Consortium: ₹2,40,000/-
Funeral Expenses: ₹15,000/-
Loss of Estate: ₹15,000/-
Total: ₹68,51,328/-
Minus Earlier Award: ₹7,88,692/-
Enhanced Compensation: ₹60,62,636/-
The Court directed United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to deposit the enhanced amount with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, failing which it would attract 7.5% interest from the date of judgment.
“Financial Realities Must Inform Judicial Calculations of Compensation” — Justice Rekha Borana Recalibrates MACP Law with Contextual Precision
This ruling powerfully affirms that real-world financial evidence, like bank loans and statutory business consents, cannot be brushed aside in favour of presumptive minimum wage standards. By integrating jurisprudence with practical indicators of income, the Court ensured a just and dignified recompense for the dependents of a self-employed rural businessman
Date of Judgment: 23rd September 2025
