Compensation Must Reflect Actual Income When Evidence Exists | HC

Case Details: New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sri Paresh Sabdakar - [2025] 180 taxmann.com 274 (HC-TRIPURA)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Dr T. Amarnath Goud, J.
• G.S. Das, K. Deb, S. Deb & Ms Monoswaee Dey, Advs. for the Appellant.
• S. Das & S. Talapatra, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the deceased was the driver of a truck under the employment of OP, the owner. He died in an accident while driving the said vehicle.

The Claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation. The Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation passed the impugned award, assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 26,000 in terms of the Notification of the High Court.

It was noted that since the evidence of OPW-1, who claimed to be owner of vehicle and the employer of deceased, clearly indicated that the monthly salary of deceased was Rs. 5,000/-plus Rs. 1,200/- per trip for 4 to 5 trips per month, his monthly income was to be considered as Rs. 11,000/- and, thus, assessed amount of Rs. 26,000/- was to be reduced to Rs. 11,000/-.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the Notification is applicable only in cases where there is no proof of income. However, in the instant case, evidence of OPW-3, who was the employer, had been duly recorded, and the claimants themselves had admitted a relationship between the deceased and the employer (OPW-1). Therefore, the revised award was to be calculated based on the monthly income of Rs. 11,000.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Jaya Biswal v. Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. [2016] 2 taxmann.com 1604 (SC)
• Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata AIR 1976 SC 222
• Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumaer (2014) 5 SCC 330 (para 8) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Jaya Biswal v. Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. [2016] 2 taxmann.com 1604 (SC) (para 5)
• Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata AIR 1976 SC 222 (para 6.1)
• Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar (2014) 5 SCC 330 (para 6.2).