Judgment : Admit. 2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company waives service. 3. Heard finally at the admission stage with the consent of both the parties. 4. Perused the record. 5. This appeal is filed by the original claimants for the enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Additional Member, M.A.C.T., Pune by order dated 20/12/1997. The Member, M.A.C.T. has awarded Rs.1,79,500/-towards total compensation against the claim of Rs.6,12,896/-. Claimant nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased, claimant Nos.3 and 4 are the real brothers. 6. On 12/12/2003 deceased Dayanand was waiting for the bus to go to Pune. At that time one Tata Indica bearing number MH-12-AF-5630 came in high speed which was driven recklessly and dashed violently to Dayanand. Dayanand sustained multiple injuries. He was shifted to K.E.M. Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on 24/12/2003. 7. The claim was filed by the claimants under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was claimed that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as a casual labour and was getting wages of Rs. 135/-per day. The Tribunal did not accept the said claim of Rs.135/-per day on the ground that the deceased was employed with one civil contractor two days prior to his death. The Tribunal, therefore, held that his income was not established and hence awarded limited compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,79,500/-. Point for determination. “1) Whether the applicants are entitled to get enhanced compensation as per the income fixed at Rs.3,000/-p.m. under the Minimum Wages Act? Yes. As per final order.” 8. A short issue involved in this appeal is only fixation of monthly income of the deceased. Admittedly Dayanand resumed his job on 10/12/2003. Claimant No.1 is the father of the deceased. He deposed that the deceased was 19 years old. He has studied up to 12th standard. He was working with Krisna Engineering Work as casual labour. He was getting Rs. 135/-per day. Therefore, the witness claimed that his monthly salary is to be considered as Rs.3,375/-p.m.. In support of his evidence the claimants have examined one. Sunil Gavali who was working as Engineering Contractor for different industries. He deposed that Dayanand was employed as a trainee helper on 10/12/2003 on daily wages of Rs.135/-per 8 hours. He issued certificate to that effect which is marked as Exh.36. 9. In support of his evidence the claimants have examined one. Sunil Gavali who was working as Engineering Contractor for different industries. He deposed that Dayanand was employed as a trainee helper on 10/12/2003 on daily wages of Rs.135/-per 8 hours. He issued certificate to that effect which is marked as Exh.36. 9. The Tribunal while assessing the evidence of this witness on the point of income has relied on the admissions given by Sunil Gavali in the cross examination where he has admitted that he did not keep the record of the payment of wages to the trainees and muster. The Tribunal has therefore, emphasised that in absence of documentary evidence it is unsafe to rely on the evidence i.e. certificate of wages of Rs.135/-per day issued by the witness in favour of the deceased. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the appellants have adduced evidence showing that on the date of the accident the deceased was earning wages at Rs.135/-per day and therefore, that amount is to be accepted as a proof and there is no reason for the Tribunal to disbelieve such evidence. In support of his submissions he relied on Govind Yadav Vs. New India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 683. He placed reliance on paragraph 13 of the judgment. "In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards." 11. Learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was young and strong person and he would have definitely earned his daily wages minimum at the rate of Rs.135/-per day. This ought to have been accepted by the Tribunal. He further pointed out that claimant no.3 is mentally retarded brother of the deceased who was depending on him. Alternatively on the point of monthly income of the deceased, he submitted that the State of Maharashtra by its notification dated 14/5/2007 issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has fixed minimum wages for skilled worker as Rs.3,730/-per month. 12. He further pointed out that claimant no.3 is mentally retarded brother of the deceased who was depending on him. Alternatively on the point of monthly income of the deceased, he submitted that the State of Maharashtra by its notification dated 14/5/2007 issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has fixed minimum wages for skilled worker as Rs.3,730/-per month. 12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposed this appeal on the point of income and submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in fixing the compensation taking into account notional income of Rs.15,000/-as per the structured formula under section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. 13. The issue of income of the deceased involves a very peculiar circumstance. Two witnesses of the claimants have consistently stated that the deceased was employed as a casual labour on daily wages of Rs.135/-per day. Thus, a monthly income was calculated as Rs.3,375/-per month. It cannot be said that no evidence is adduced by the applicants on the point of income. The deceased had studied up to 12th standard. He was young and able bodied person. When he was waiting for the bus he was killed by the driver of the car who was reckless and negligent. It is true that besides the certificate of wages, no other documentary evidence is brought on record by the claimants. Such evidence in fact was not in existence and so it could not be brought on record. Sunil Gavali has admitted that the establishment where the deceased was working did not keep the record of the trainee worker and the deceased was employed as a trainee. He specifically stated that he was employed one day prior to the date of accident. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated this evidence in proper angle. It was possible for these two witnesses to say that the deceased was working for some considerable period prior to the date of accident, however, they have stated that one day prior to the accident the deceased was employed. This itself shows that the deceased was definitely working with Sunil Gavali as a casual labour and though the period of his service is less and it is not found satisfactory to the judicial conscience to accept the amount of Rs.135/-per day as stated by the witness as daily income of the deceased similarly monthly income cannot be notionally fixed at Rs. 15,000/-per annum under the structured formula. The evidence is tendered in respect of the income and fact that he was working as casual labour in some industrial unit is proved. The Workmen Compensation Act is a social legislation therefore if no adequate and cogent evidence regarding wages is tendered, then by applying yardstick of the Minimum Wages Act the wages can be fixed. The workers/employees like driver, cleaner are not salaried persons hence production of authenticated salary certificate showing correct monthly income of such persons cannot be expected. Hence the Court has to enter the arena of guess work and for such guess work the claimant is required to provide a foundation. Reliance is placed on paragraph 21 of Govind Yadav Vs. New India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 683, which reads as follows: "Unfortunately, both the Tribunal and the High Court overlooked that at the relevant time minimum wages payable to a worker were Rs.3000 per month. Therefore, in the absence of other cogent evidence, the Tribunal and the High Court should have determined the amount of compensation in lieu of loss of earning by taking the appellant's notional annual income as Rs.36,000/-and the loss of earning on account of 70% permanent disability as Rs.25,200/-." 14. The dependency of one mentally retarded brother of the deceased ought to have been taken into account by the Tribunal. Though the father of the deceased has given admission in the evidence that at present his mentally retarded son is residing with his other son, it cannot be said that dependency is reduced. 15. In the present case the Minimum Wages Act is attracted and so the monthly income of the deceased is accepted as Rs.3,000/-per month. Hence the notional income is Rs.3,000/-per month i.e. Rs.36,000/-per annum. After deducting 1/3 amount i.e. Rs.12,000/-towards the expenses of the deceased the amount towards dependability of the applicants comes to Rs.24,000/-and applying multiplier 16 the compensation is to be fixed at Rs.3,84,000/-. After deducting the amount of Rs.1,60,000/-which is already awarded by the Tribunal the enhanced amount of compensation is Rs.2,24,000/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum -from the date of the claim petition. Hence the award be modified to that extent only. Rest of the order of compensation towards Funeral expenses, loss of estate, medical expenses, etc. of the Tribunal is kept intact.