MANUSHA SREEKUMAR & ORS. versus THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 455 · Decided: 17-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
455
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 455
455
MANUSHA SREEKUMAR & ORS.
v.
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 7593 of 2022)
OCTOBER 17, 2022
[SURYA KANT AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation– Income of
deceased, fixed considering minimum wages notification – Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.57 – Kerala Motor Transport Workers’
Payment of Fair Wages Act, 1971 – s.2 – Deceased met with a fatal
accident in 2015 while riding his motorcycle, offending car was
insured by respondent-Insurance Company – Tribunal fixed the total
compensation of loss of dependency along with other heads at Rs.
32,39,000/- – High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.
19,70,000/- – On appeal, held: There exists sufficient evidence to
show that the Deceased was a fish vendor-cum-driver with a valid
license – No reason to doubt that he was a driver at the time of his
death – In the absence of a salary certificate, the minimum wages
notification along with some amount of guesswork that is not
completely detached from reality shall act as a yardstick to determine
the income of the deceased – Thus, judicial notice of the Kerala
Fair Wages Act taken which classifies a driver as a “Skilled worker”
– Reading this in conjunction with Notification prescribing minimum
wages for skilled worker, that came into effect from 01.01.15
amending the Kerala Fair Wages Act, a ‘driver’ in Kerala earned a
minimum of Rs. 15,600/- in 2015 – Thus, final notional income of
the Deceased fixed at Rs.15,600 /- (Rs. 1,87,200/- p.a) – Since the
Deceased was 32 years old at the time of his death, the multiplier
applied is 16 – 40% of increase for future prospects added as he
was self-employed – One-third of the Deceased’s income deducted
towards his personal expense as he had three dependents – Hence,
the compensation payable to the appellants under the head of loss
of dependency is Rs.27,95,520/- – Upon adding the remaining
amount granted by High Court under different heads, the total
compensation comes to Rs. 29,73,520/-, to be paid by Insurance
Company with 9% interest.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.168 – Held: s.168 makes it
imperative to grant compensation that appears to be just – Adequate
compensation is considered to be fair and equitable compensation
– Courts shoulder the responsibility of deciding adequate
compensation on a case-to-case basis.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Just compensation – Factors to
be established – Held: As laid down in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC
and Ors., the three factors are: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income
of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependents.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Loss of
dependency – Issues to be determined by Tribunal – Held: The issues
that are to be determined to arrive at the loss of dependency are-
additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; the
deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the
deceased; and the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age
of the deceased.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation under non-
-conventional heads, if to be granted – Plea of Insurance Company
that the High Court ought not to have granted any compensation to
the appellants, under the ‘non-conventional heads’ which is
impermissible as per the dictum of Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi –
Held: Insurance Company chose not to file any appeal against the
judgment of the High Court – Having acquiesced, the Insurance
Company cannot turn around and question a paltry amount of
compensation awarded under the said head – However, question of
law kept open.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 While determining compensation under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 168 of the Act makes it
imperative to grant compensation that appears to be just. The
Act being a social welfare legislation operates through economic
conception in the form of compensation, which renders way to
corrective justice. Compensation acts as a fulcrum to bring
equality between the wrongdoer and the victim, whenever the
equality gets disturbed by the wrongdoer’s harm to the victim. It
also endeavors to make good the human suffering to the extent
possible and to also save families which have lost their
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
457
breadwinners from being pushed to vagrancy. Adequate
compensation is considered to be fair and equitable
compensation. Courts shoulder the responsibility of deciding
adequate compensation

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