Page No.# 1/11 GAHC030002712024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) AIZAWL BENCH MAC APP. NO. 5 of 2024 Smt. Lalnunmawii W/o Lalzuiliana Ramhlun South, Aizawl. …….Appellant -Versus- 1. Vanlalmuani, W/o L. Lalthanga (L), Dinthar, Aizawl, Mizoram. 2. Smt. Lalchhanhimi, D/o Vaia (L) R/o Bawngkawn, Aizawl. ….Respondents Advocates for the Appellant : Mr. F. Lalengliana, Sr. Adv. Advocate for the respondent: Mr. Ram Murmu for R-2. Page No.# 2/11 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA Date of Hearing & Judgment : 11.06.2026. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Ram Murmu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. None appears for the respondent No. 1/claimant. 2. It appears from the record as reflected in the Order dated 29.10.2024 that this Court vide Order dated 25.07.2024 had directed the appellant to allow to take steps for service of notice upon respondent No. 1 by substituted mode, i.e. by publishing the same in the local newspaper. In pursuance to the said directions, the appellant has taken steps for publication of the notice in local newspaper namely, ‘Vanglaini; Hriattirna’ dated 8th August, 2024 as well as another local newspaper namely, ‘Dinthar Aw’ dated 11th August, 2020. To that effect the appellant has also submitted an affidavit of compliance annexing therewith the copies of the newspapers in which the notices have been published. Page No.# 3/11 3. In view of the same, notice is deemed to be duly served upon the respondent No. 1. However, none appears for the said respondent till today. 4. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant who is arrayed as a respondent No. 2 in the case before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl challenging the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2024 passed in MACT Case No. 53/2015, whereby the liability for payment was cast upon the present appellant. 5. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows:- On the evening of 13.06.2014 @ about 7:30 pm one Bike B/R. No. MZ 01 D-2482 ridden by L. Lalthanga while proceeding towards Aizawl was dashed from behind by a truck B/R. No. MZ 01 H-7685 driven by Donny Zoliansanga while trying to overtake the said Bike. From the light of enquiry, it was learnt that the said truck after dashing the bike and its rider fled away from the spot but was accosted by the O/C on the outskirt of Zemabawk. During enquiry, it was found that the driver of the truck namely Donny Zoliansanga had driven the truck under the influence of alcohol in a rash and negligent manner. Hence, BKN P/S C/No. 118/2014 Dt. 14.6.2014 u/s 279/304 'A' IPC r/w 185/187 MV Act was registered against the driver of the truck. That the deceased L.Thanga was Blacksmith by profession having his own workshop at Dinthar, Aizawl, Mizoram Page No.# 4/11 earning about Rs.29,000/- per month. The claimant filed the case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against owners claiming compensation for the death of her husband in a vehicular accident. 6. Since the vehicle was not insured, no Insurance Company was made a party to the proceedings. 7. The OP No. 1 had submitted written statement stating that she had already sold the vehicle to the present appellant by executing Sale Letter between seller and buyer on 17.04.2014 in the presence of witnesses and hence, the liability is upon the new owner (buyer of the said vehicle). 8. OP No. 2, the present appellant also contested by filing written statement wherein she took the stand that the OP No. 1 being the registered owner was liable for any compensation that may have to be paid to the claimant. 9. One of the questions that arose for consideration before the learned Tribunal is with regard to the party upon which the liability for compensation is to be fixed and for the reasons assigned, the learned Tribunal Court held the appellant to be liable. It may be stated that on all other issues including regarding rush and negligent driving, the findings were in favour of the claimant, which are not under challenge in the present appeal and therefore Page No.# 5/11 need not detain this Court. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the only ground on which the appellant proposes to press this appeal is regarding the quantum of compensation. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal in finding that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 29,000/- per month based on the same certificate issued by the Chairman of the Local Council and there is no other direct evidence, either documentary or oral, regarding the income of the deceased and therefore, his income has to be taken as per the rates of wages for skilled workers as per relevant Government Notifications. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel has placed on record the two notifications issued by the Government of Mizoram. 11. The first of the said notification is the Notification No. B. 14015/5/2019- LESDE, dated 19.01.2023, published in the Mizoram Gazette Extraordinary on 20.01.2023 which notified the Mizoram Code on Wages Rules, 2022 wherein “blacksmith” and blacksmith - (Class-II) have been brought within the category of skilled workers. The second is the Notification No. B.14015/4/2010- LESDE/417 dated 16.06.2023 whereby the Government revised the minimum rates of wages for workers employed in the scheduled employment of various daily wage employees under the Government departments, semi-government Page No.# 6/11 organization, public undertakings, private undertakings and on contract basis as shown in the table provided in the same notification, with effect from 01.04.2023. 12. The said table of wages may be reproduced below for the sake of convenience:- SCHEDULED EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY OF WORKERS MINIMUM RATES OF WAGES PER DAY CASUAL/MUSTER ROLL EMPLOYEES UNSKILLED Rs. 420/- SEMI-SKILLED Rs. 460/- SKILLED-II Rs. 570/- SKILLED-I Rs. 730/- ROADS & BUILDING OPERATIONS UNSKILLED Rs. 420/- SEMI-SKILLED Rs. 460/- SKILLED-II Rs. 570/- SKILLED-I Rs. 730/- EMPLOYMENT IN REGISTERED FACTORIES NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED UNSKILLED Rs. 420/- SEMI-SKILLED Rs. 460/- SKILLED-II Rs. 570/- SKILLED-I Rs. 730/- PUBLIC MOTOR TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES UNSKILLED Rs. 420/- SEMI-SKILLED Rs. 460/- SKILLED-II Rs. 570/- SKILLED-I Rs. 730/- Page No.# 7/11 13. Reverting to the evidence on record, it appears that the Chairman of the concerned Local Council was examined as CW-3. He deposed that he was the Chairman of the Local Council, Dinthar, between the period 2012 to 2015 and he knew the deceased who was residing at a rented house in Dinthar paying a monthly rent of Rs.4500/- plus Rs. 1500/- per month for the workshop. He further deposed that the deceased was the only blacksmith of the locality and being acquainted with the nature of the works performed by the deceased, he opined that the income of the deceased could not be less than Rs. 29,000/- per month. During cross-examination, the OP No. 2, i.e. the present appellant, admitted the suggestions that he did not see the deceased receiving Rs. 29,000/- with his own eyes, nor did he see any documentary evidence such as cash book etc. and he also did not see the deceased paying the rent of his rented house and workshop. He came to know the amount from the owner of the building. He also stated that the Exhibit C-17 is the income certificate, showing an income of Rs. 29,000/- per month which is based on the sitting of the Local Council and on the nature of the work of the deceased. 14. A perusal of the aforesaid evidence would show that the documentary Page No.# 8/11 evidence, i.e., the purported certificate of income issued by the Chairman of the Local Council is not based on any other documentary evidence or record of income of the deceased, but on presumptions. It is difficult to see how the Chairman of the Local Council, without being closely associated in some capacity with the work of the deceased, could depose to the actual income of the deceased and could issue the certificate in this regard, stating a precise figure. 15. Although the CW-1 had stated that he had come to know from the owner of the building about the quantum of rent that was being paid by the deceased, the said owner was never examined during the trial and therefore, the evidence of the CW-3 in this regard is purely hearsay. 16. Having regard to the nature of the evidence available on record, this Court is inclined to accept the uncontroverted submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the income of the deceased has not been proved on the basis of legally acceptable material. 17. As per the said Notification dated 16.06.2023, Skilled- II (Junior Grade) means workers whose work which involves skills or competence acquired through experience on jobs or through training as apprentice in a technical or vocational institute and the performance of which calls for initiative and judgment whereas Skilled-I (Senior Grade) requires experience in the work Page No.# 9/11 requiring great skills. 18. It is the considered opinion of this Court that the blacksmith would come within the category of Skilled-II(Junior Grade) as the work of the blacksmith certainly involved skills and competence acquired through experience or training and its performance also called for initiative and judgment. 19. On the other hand, in order to qualify under the category of Skilled-I (Senior Grade), the same pertains to work requiring great skills which would ordinarily indicate a very specialized line of work, requiring special skills. 20. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is on the above line and in the absence of any contrary argument in this regard, this Court finds no difficulty in accepting the aforesaid submission to hold that the wages prescribed for Skilled-II (Junior Grade) i.e. Rs. 570/- per day should be taken into consideration while computing the monthly income of the deceased, who was blacksmith by profession. 21. Taking the working days in a month to be 6 days a week, the weekly income would be Rs. 570x6=3420/- Therefore, the annual income can be computed by multiplying the weekly income with the numbers of weeks in a year, i.e. 52. Hence, the annual income is computed as Rs. 3420x52= Rs. Page No.# 10/11 177,840/- 22. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that as far as the rest of computation is concerned as reflected in the impugned Judgment and Order, there is no difficulty or objection to the manner of calculation which however has to be based on the annual income, which is to be taken as Rs. 177,840/-. 23. Accordingly, the compensation is re-calculated as follows:- (1) Annual income = Rs.3420x52 = Rs.177,840/- (2) Addition of 40% towards future prospect = Rs.177840x40 =Rs.71,136/- 100 (3) Loss of income =Rs. 177840+3420x16x2 =Rs.19,33,440/- 3 (4) Funeral Expenses (with 10% increase after every 3 years) = Rs.16500/- (5) Loss of Estate (with 10% increase after every 3 years) = Rs.16500/- (6) Loss of Consortium (with 10% increase after every 3 years) = Rs.40000/- Total compensation Awarded =Rs.22,55,416/- 24. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by altering the amount of compensation as calculated above. As such, the OP No. 2/appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 22,55,416/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs fifty five thousand four hundred and sixteen) only along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. [as per the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in MAC Appeal No. 17 of 2017 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page No.# 11/11 Vs. Sh. S. Muana & Another)] from the date of filing i.e. 15.09.2015 to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in form of account payee cheque or in cash or demand draft in favour of the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl, Mizoram for onward disbursement to the respondent No. 2/claimant. The OP No.2/appellant shall make the deposit within two months from the date of receipt of this Judgment and Order. 25. The rest of the findings will remain the same as recorded by the learned Tribunal. 26. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 27. The Notifications referred to above be kept on record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant