MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC

“Appellate Court Cannot Substitute Its View Where Tribunal's Findings Are Not Perverse”, Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the insurer challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, to the legal heirs of a deceased heavy vehicle driver. Justice Sudeep­ti Sharma held that the Tribunal had rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹15,680 based on the wage notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, applicable to skilled labour, and not the minimum wage rates under the state notification, as contended by the insurer.

The Court firmly reiterated that in the absence of any perversity or illegality in the Tribunal's reasoning, there was no scope for interference by the appellate court. “It is trite law that a Court sitting in appeal does not substitute its own view for that of the Court below merely because an alternative view is possible,” the Court said, echoing the principles laid down in Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co., 2024 INSC 816.

“Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable”: Court Affirms MACT’s Income Assessment

The dispute in the appeal primarily revolved around the income computation of the deceased driver for determining the quantum of compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, had awarded ₹19,60,000 with 7.5% interest to the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, after treating the deceased as a skilled worker, relying on the Deputy Commissioner’s wage notification which fixed the income for skilled workers at ₹15,680 per month.

Challenging this, the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the deceased’s income should have been calculated at ₹8,245 based on the minimum wages notified by the Haryana Government for skilled labour. Counsel for the insurer argued that the Tribunal committed a legal error by applying the Deputy Commissioner's local wage rate, which, according to him, could not override the state’s minimum wage notification.

However, the Court rejected this contention outright. Justice Sharma observed, “There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the wage rates notified by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, were not applicable to the deceased. In the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, the learned Tribunal was justified in relying upon the said notification.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Saroj v. IFFCO-Tokio, the High Court clarified that in the absence of proof that Deputy Commissioner’s wage rates were inapplicable, they remained a valid basis for computing income, especially where there is evidence to prove the skilled nature of the job performed by the deceased.

“Since there is nothing on record to establish that the rates notified by the District Commissioner would not apply to the deceased, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal,” the Court quoted the Supreme Court from the Saroj judgment.

The High Court also took note that the deceased held a valid heavy and medium goods vehicle driving licence (Ex. R-6), making it evident that he was engaged in skilled employment. “The deceased was duly qualified to be treated as a skilled worker in the category of heavy vehicle driver,” the Court affirmed.

Appellate Jurisdiction Not for Substitution of View Absent Perversity

Justice Sharma strongly reiterated the principle of limited appellate intervention, stating that “interference is warranted only where the impugned findings are vitiated by perversity, illegality, or material irregularity.” Relying on para 9.1 of the Saroj judgment, the Court reiterated that “the general rule insofar as appellate proceedings are concerned is that a Court sitting in appeal is not to substitute its view for that of the Court below.”

The Court clarified that the High Court in Saroj had erred in reducing the compensation by arbitrarily preferring state minimum wage notifications over DC notifications without evidence of inapplicability of the latter. It emphasised that the role of an appellate court is not to evaluate “which yardstick is better,” but to determine whether the Tribunal’s approach was flawed. “The approach adopted by the Tribunal cannot be said to be arbitrary or erroneous,” the Court held.

Cross-Appeal Filed by Claimants for Enhancement Has No Bearing

It was also noted that while the insurer sought reduction of compensation, the claimants themselves had filed a cross-appeal (FAO No. 8217-2017) seeking enhancement of the award. However, the High Court restricted its analysis to the question of reduction and found no grounds to disturb the Tribunal’s calculation of income or application of multiplier.

Refund of Statutory Deposit Permitted to Insurer

While dismissing the appeal, the Court allowed the appellant-insurance company to claim a refund of the statutory deposit of ₹25,000 made at the time of admission of the appeal, as per standard procedure. “The statutory amount of ₹25,000/- deposited by the appellant Insurance Company at the time of admission of the appeal, is ordered to be refunded to them,” the Court ordered.

In essence, the High Court’s judgment reinforces the legal position that Deputy Commissioner’s wage notifications can be appropriately relied upon in the absence of contrary evidence and that skilled workers—especially those licensed to drive heavy vehicles—cannot be evaluated merely on minimum wage thresholds. It further underlines the circumscribed role of appellate courts in compensation cases, where interference is justified only if the findings of the Tribunal are manifestly unjust, illegal, or perverse.

Date of Decision: 18.12.2025