CHANDRA @ CHANDA @ CHANDRARAM & ANR. versus MUKESH KUMAR YADAV & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 591 · Decided: 01-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. SUBHASH REDDY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2021] 8 S.C.R. 591
591
CHANDRA @ CHANDA @ CHANDRARAM & ANR.
v.
MUKESH KUMAR YADAV & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6152 of 2021)
OCTOBER 01, 2021
[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 166 – Fatal accident – Victim-
deceased 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
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 victim-
deceased 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 1/3rd 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]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
593
Minu Ro

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.