How to determine monthly income of the deceased or injured when no document in support thereof is not produced when there is documentary evidence on record to show that  the deceased or injured claimant was earning in foreign currency and not in Indian Rupee:-

 

             How to determine monthly income of the deceased or injured when no document in support thereof is not produced

            In the case of Govind Yadav (supra), in para No.17 it has been held that when there is no proof of income, income of the deceased or injured claimant shall be decided by taking into consideration prevalence minimum wages.

            However, in the case of Chandra v/s. Mukesh Kumar, 2021 ACJ 2554 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in absence of Salary slip minimum wages can be the yardstick but it cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased.

            Several State Government have issued notifications of the relating to Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as '1948 Act').

 

How to determine income of the deceased or injured claimant when there is documentary evidence on record to show that the deceased or injured claimant was earning in foreign currency and not in Indian Rupee:-

            Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s S.Malarvizhi, in C.M.A. No.2623 of 2009, decided on 6 June, 2013 has held that when the deceased or injured claimant was getting salary in foreign currency, then in such situation such foreign salary/income should be converted into Indian Rupee, at the rates applicable at the time of accident and deduction of higher percentage of 60% of the income and low multiplier should be applied.

 

           Reference may also be made to ratio laid down in the case of In the case of United India Insurance Com. Ltd. v/s Patricia Jean Mahajan, reported in 2002 (6) SCC 281 =  2002 ACJ 1481= 2002 (4) Supreme 518. Said case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court arose out of a claim made on behalf of the Doctor of Indian origin who became the American citizen and was killed in a road accident when he visited India. The claim for compensation was based upon the income in the foreign country and while considering the said case, among other things, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the total amount of compensation would work out to Rs.16.12 crores with interest and looking to the Indian Economy, fiscal and financial situation, the amount is certainly a fabulous amount though in the background of American conditions it may not be so. It was further held that when there is so much disparity in the economic conditions and affluence of two places viz. place to

which the victim belong and the place at which the compensation is to be paid, a golden balance must be struck somewhere, to arrive at a reasonable and fair compensation. Looking by the Indian standards they may not be much too overcompensated and similarly not very much under compensated as well, in the background of the country where most of the dependent beneficiaries reside.

 

              Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent decision reported in 2017 ACJ 697 (SC) – Divisional Manager of OI Com vs. Swapna Nayak.

            One may also refer to ratio laid down in the case of Ramla v/s. NI Com., AIR 2019 SC 404. Wherein also deceased was earning 2,500 Qatar Riyas, which is equivalent to Rs.30,000/­ and therefore, Rs.30,000/­ has been taken into consideration for calculation of amount of compensation. But 40% amount has been deduced as personal expenditure of the deceased.

 

            In the recent decision Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chanderi Devi v/s Jaspal Singh, reported in 2015 ACJ 1612 has held that when in the cases where deceased was earning in the foreign currency, income of such deceased persons can be assessed by taking into consideration income of a person who performs similar nature of work in India.

 

            In the recent ratio, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chanderi devi v/s Jaspal Singh, reported in 2015 STPL(Web) 273 (SC) has held that:­ Deceased aged 32 years ­Employed as an Indian Cook in Moghul Tandoor Restaurant in Germany – He was drawing wages of 1145 Euro per month ­Taking the income

of the deceased at the time of his death at Rs.8,333/­ per month by High Court held to be on the lower side – Plausibly estimating as to how much a cook of similar nature as the deceased would have earned in India in the year 2006, it would be just and reasonable to ascertain the income of the deceased at the time of his death at Rs.15,000/­ per month – By adding 50% of the actual salary as provision for future prospects, the income of the deceased to be considered for calculation of loss of dependency is Rs.22,500/­ per month i.e. Rs.2,70,000/­ per annum – Deducting 10% towards income tax the net income comes to Rs.2,43,000/­ per annum – Further, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying the correct multiplier the loss of dependency would come to Rs.25,92,000/­ [(Rs.2,43,000/­    (­)    1/3rd    of    Rs.2,43,000/­)    x    16]    –

Rs.1,00,000/­ awarded  towards loss of  estate  to the  appellant­

wife, Rs.25,000/­ towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/­ towards loss of consortium to the appellant­wife – An amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ is awarded to the appellant­minor towards loss of love and affection of her father(deceased) – Compensation enhance from Rs.17,10,000/­ to Rs. 29,17,000/­ with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

            In fact in the above referred case before Hon'ble Apex Court, deceased was working as Cook in the India restaurant in Germany  and was drawing monthly  salary of 1,145 Euro

(₹ 62,975 p/m). but Hon'ble Apex Court has considered

monthly income of deceased as ₹15,000/­ p/m, taking into

consideration income of a cook of similar nature in India.

            Deceased was employed as labourer in Doha and his

monthly income in the year 1984 was 750/­ Qatari Riyal. Claimant have produced photocopy of the Employment Contracts Form certified by Indian Embassy at Doha. Claimants have also produced another letter issued by his employer to New Zealand Consulate mentioning that deceased wanted to visit New Zealand and his salary in the Month of June, 1997 was $6,700/­ p.m. Supreme Court did not believe the letter issued by the employer of deceased to the New Zealand Consulate and took into account letter of 1984. Taking income at the rate of 750/­ Riyal p.m., Supreme Court added 10% increase for each year and assessed monthly income of the deceased as 2,600/­ Riyal for the year 1997. Same was converted into India Rupee, which worked out to be 32,266/­. Applied multiplier of 15 as deceased was aged about 40 years. Supreme Court also awarded parental consortium to three 3 children. Total compensation worked out as Rs.19,82,563/­. ­ U.I.I. Com. v/s. Satinder Kaur, AIR 2020 SC 3076.

            In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Chandra v/s. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Com., reported in 2021 ACJ 2550 the deceased was a qualified computer graduate and was earning 3,500 p/m in Riyal. Supreme Court converted said income into Indian Rupee and awarded compensation.