HC: Courts can treat victim as labourer

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 25

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said the courts or authorities concerned were well within their right to treat a victim as a labourer while assessing compensation in cases where income proof was unavailable.

Justice Mahesh Grover also made it clear that the amount more than the minimum wages for the labourers could be assessed as the victim’s income while determining the compensation. Minimum wagers would not necessarily indicate that a labourer was not earning more, Justice Grover ruled.

The ruling came in the case of the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam against the Permanent Lok Adalat and other respondents. The nigam had impugned the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, whereby it had granted a compensation of Rs9.24 lakh in case of electrocution, attributed to negligence of the nigam.

The counsel for the petitioner had contended before the court that Rs6,000 had been taken as the victim’s income in the absence of any proof. “If that was to be done, the government instructions should have been taken into consideration regarding minimum wages at the rate of Rs4,847,” said the counsel.

Taking up the matter, Justice Grover said: “On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that while assessing compensation in the cases where there is no proof of income, the courts or the authorities bestowed upon determination of the compensation are very well within their right to treat the person as a labourer.

“The notification the counsel for the petitioner has sought to be relied upon was never produced before the authority concerned, which assessed the income of the deceased as Rs6,000 per month, which is not excessive.

“The finding recorded in the impugned order determining the income at Rs6,000 per month cannot be seriously faulted with, as even otherwise the government instructions prescribing wages are merely a guiding factor to ensure a minimum wage which does not necessarily mean that a labourer would not be earning a higher amount. It is only a guarantee to a worker that he will not be paid below this amount. No other point has been urged.”