caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Chandra @ Chnada @ Chandraram vs Mukesh Kumar Yadav on 1 October, 2021Author: R. Subhash Reddy
Bench: R. Subhash Reddy, Hrishikesh Roy
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6152 OF 2021
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019]
Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram & Anr. …..Appellants
Versus
Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. …..Respondents
JUDGMENT
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Unfortunate parents who lost their son aged about 32 years
in the motor vehicle road accident on 27.02.2016, are before this
Court claiming enhancement of compensation arising out of an
application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. The appellants are the parents; 4 th respondent is the wife; 5th
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
respondent is the minor son; 6 th respondent is the brother; and 7 th
Rachna
Date: 2021.10.01
15:10:07 IST
Reason:
respondent is the sister of the deceased Shivpal. The appellants and
1
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019
respondent nos.4 to 7 were the applicants in the application filed
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor
Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, Rajasthan (for short, ‘the
Tribunal’) claiming compensation of Rs.93,08,000/ with interest @
15% p.a. The Tribunal by judgment dated 25.11.2017 has awarded
the total compensation of Rs.10,99,700/ with interest @ 6% p.a. The
appellantparents alone have filed appeal before the High Court. The
High Court by impugned judgment dated 06.07.2018 dismissed the
appeal. As such the appellants are before this Court.
4. The deceased Shivpal was employed as driver on the vehicle,
i.e., truck trailer bearing No.RJ06GA6576. When he was driving
the vehicle on 27.02.2016, within the limits of Adarsh Nagar Police
Station, Ajmer, the vehicle – truck trailer bearing no.RJ14GD
1156, driven by the 1st respondent; belonging to the 2nd respondent;
and insured with the 3rd respondent, came on the wrong side and
rammed into the vehicle of the deceased resulting in the accident, as a
result of which Shivpal died in the said accident.
5. It was the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that
deceased Shivpal was in possession of heavy vehicle driving licence
and was earning Rs.15,000/ per month. Apart from the claim on
account of loss of dependency, they also claimed compensation on all
2
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019
other conventional heads. The Tribunal has held that accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, driven by
the 1st respondent. The Tribunal by taking into account the income of
the deceased at Rs.5746/ per month has awarded a total
compensation of Rs.10,99,700/ inclusive of consortium of
Rs.40000/ to the wife and minor child. The Tribunal had merely
awarded an amount of Rs.10000/ each to the appellantparents, of
the deceased.
6. We have heard Sri Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri Sahil Raveen, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
7. Mainly it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants
that though the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/ per month, being a
heavy vehicle driver, the Tribunal has awarded compensation on
account of loss of dependency by taking the income of the deceased at
Rs.5746/ per month. It is submitted that wife of the deceased, i.e.
respondent no.4 has clearly stated in her deposition that deceased
was earning Rs.15000/ per month. It is submitted that inspite of
such evidence on record the Tribunal has committed error in taking
the income of the deceased at Rs.5746/ as per the minimum wage
notified to the skilled labour. Further it is submitted that Tribunal
has committed error in recording a finding that the appellants are not
3
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019
dependents as they were living separately. Lastly it is submitted that
appellants are also entitled to compensation under the head of ‘loss of
consortium’.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent has
submitted that in absence of any documentary evidence on record to
show the salary of the deceased at Rs.15,000/ per month the
Tribunal has correctly taken into account the monthly earnings of the
deceased at Rs.5746/. By relying on a judgment of this Court in the
case of Kirti & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1,
learned counsel has submitted that there are no grounds to interfere
with the impugned judgment of the High Court.
9. Having heard the learned counsels on both sides, we have
perused the impugned order and other material placed on record. At
the outset, we may note that the High Court by a cryptic order
dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants without considering
the various grounds raised in the appeal.
10. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased
was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning
Rs.15000/ per month. Possessing such licence and driving of heavy
vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on record.
1 (2021) 2 SCC 166
4
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019
Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW1
that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs.15000/ per month, same
was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not
filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by
adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year
2016. In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification
can be a yardstick 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 Shivpal, 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 late Shivpal was earning around Rs.15000/ per month. In the
case of Minu Rout & Anr. v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors.2
this Court while dealing with the claim relating to an accident which
occurred on 08.11.2004 has taken the salary of the driver of light
motor vehicle at Rs.6000/ per month. In this case the accident was
2 (2013) 10 SCC 695
5
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019
on 27.02.2016 and it is clearly proved that the deceased was in
possession of heavy vehicle driving licence and was driving such
vehicle on the day of accident. Keeping in mind the enormous growth
of vehicle population and demand for good drivers and by considering
oral evidence on record we may take the income of the deceased 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 appellantparents are
entitled for differential compensation of Rs.3,33,964/. Further in
view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors.3
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
3 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546 = (2018) 18 SCC 130
6
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019
Sarla Verma (Smt). & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.4.
The judgment in the case of Kirti & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited1 relied on by the counsel for the respondent would
not render any assistance in support of his case having regard to facts
of the case and the evidence on record.
11. For the aforesaid reasons this appeal is allowed and
appellants are entitled for further compensation amount of
Rs.3,33,964/ on account of loss of dependency and consortium
amount of Rs.40,000/ each. Thus total compensation payable to the
appellants is fixed at Rs.4,13,964/ with interest @ 6% p.a. from the
date of filing of claim petition.
12. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is partly allowed, with no
order as to costs.
………………………………J.
[R. Subhash Reddy]
………………………………J.
[Hrishikesh Roy]
New Delhi.
October 01, 2021.
4 (2009) 6 SCC 121
7
Comments