Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 166 – Fatal accident – Victimdeceased aged 32 years was employed as driver of truck trailer – He possessed heavy vehicle driving licence – On the fateful day, he was driving the vehicle when another truck trailer came on the wrong side and rammed into the vehicle of the deceased resulting in his death – Claim was filed before the Tribunal by the parents, wife, minor son, brother and sister of the deceased – It was the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs.15000/- per month – Though wife of the deceased categorically deposed that her husband deceased was earning Rs.15000/- per month, same was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed – Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016 – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 10.99 lacs with 6% PA interest – Appellant-parents alone filed appeal before the High Court which was dismissed – Hence instant appeal – Held: Although the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick in absence of salary certificate, but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased – In absence of documentary evidence on record, some amount of guesswork is required to be done – But at the same time, the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality – Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the victim-deceased, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income – No reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased that the deceased was earning around Rs.15000/- per month – Keeping in mind the enormous growth of vehicle population and demand for good drivers and considering oral evidence on record, the income of the deceased taken at Rs.8000/- per month for the purpose of loss of dependency – Deceased was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident and as he was on fixed salary, 40% enhancement is to be made towards loss of future prospects – At the same time, deduction of one-third is to be made from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses – Accordingly the income of the deceased can be arrived at Rs.7467/- per month – By applying the multiplier of ‘16’, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,33,664/- – As an amount of Rs.10,99,700/- is already paid towards the loss of dependency, the appellant-parents are entitled for differential compensation of Rs.3,33,964/- – Appellants are also entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the victimdeceased same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that the deceased was earning around Rs.15000/- per month. Keeping in mind the enormous growth of vehicle population and demand for good drivers and by considering oral evidence on record the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.8000/- per month for the purpose of loss of dependency. Deceased was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident and as he was on fixed salary, 40% enhancement is to be made towards loss of future prospects. At the same time, deduction of 1/3 rd is to be made from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Accordingly the income of the deceased can be arrived at Rs.7467/- per month. By applying the multiplier of ‘16’, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,33,664/-. As an amount of Rs.10,99,700/- is already paid towards the loss of dependency, the appellant-parents are entitled for differential compensation of Rs.3,33,964/-. The appellants are also entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. The finding of the Tribunal that parents cannot be treated as dependents runs contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma. [Para 10][595-G-H; 596-A-E]
Minu Rout & Anr. v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 695 : [2013] 10 SCR 847; Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu
Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. 2018 SCC OnLine SC
1546 : (2018) 18 SCC 130 ; Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC
121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 – relied on.
Kirti & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2021) 2 SCC 166 – distinguished.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.