Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order which had substantially reduced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court restored the Tribunal’s award of ₹23,07,000 and directed that the amount with interest be disbursed to the wife, minor children, and parents of the deceased within two months. The Court held that:
“The claim made before the Tribunal with respect to the driver of heavy vehicle getting ₹10,000/- as wages per month must be necessarily accepted.”
Further, while no enhancement was ordered due to the absence of a claimant appeal, the Court clarified that:
“The award made as compensation for loss of consortium to the children and the parents by the Tribunal has to be retained.”
Facts
The deceased was a truck driver who died in a road accident when a rashly driven truck hit him as he was boarding his own vehicle after parking. His family—comprising his widow, three minor children, and parents—filed a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation. The Tribunal accepted his monthly income as ₹10,000, added 40% towards future prospects, and deducted one-third for personal expenses. The Tribunal awarded ₹23,07,000 in total, including consortium and funeral expenses.
However, on appeal by the insurance company, the High Court reduced the monthly income to ₹5,434 (minimum wages) and consequently slashed the total compensation to ₹12,34,105.
Issues
- Whether the High Court erred in reducing the assessed income of the deceased from ₹10,000 to ₹5,434 per month.
- Whether the compensation awarded for loss of consortium to the children and parents was permissible.
- Whether the Tribunal’s award required modification in the absence of an appeal from the claimants.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, contended that:
- The Tribunal rightly assessed the deceased’s income as ₹10,000 per month, considering he was a driver of a heavy vehicle.
- The High Court’s reliance on minimum wages was arbitrary, especially given the profession of the deceased.
- Consortium was rightfully awarded to all dependents in light of evolving jurisprudence.
Respondent’s Arguments
The insurance company argued:
- The Tribunal’s assessment of income was excessive and without supporting documentary evidence.
- Minimum wages should have been the proper benchmark, which the High Court correctly applied.
- The award of consortium to all dependents was not in accordance with established precedent.
Analysis of the Law
The Court referred to its prior decision in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236], where it was held that even a coolie would earn ₹4,500 per month in 2004. The Court extrapolated this finding to conclude that a skilled worker such as a heavy vehicle driver would reasonably earn around ₹10,000 per month in 2014, the year of the accident.
The Court also cited New India Assurance Co. v. Somwati [(2020) 9 SCC 644], reiterating that compensation for loss of consortium is not limited to the spouse and includes children and parents.
Precedent Analysis
- Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd — Established a precedent on the expected income of unskilled labourers for earlier years, forming a basis for logical income progression in subsequent years.
- New India Assurance Co. v. Somwati — Held that consortium is payable to children and parents in addition to the spouse.
The Court applied both precedents to reject the High Court’s narrow application of minimum wage principles and limited interpretation of consortium compensation.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s reduced income figure and affirmed that:
“An unskilled labourer considering the marginal and incremental increase in each successive year @ ₹500 per year would be entitled to get almost ₹10,000 in the year 2014.”
On consortium, the Court clarified that the High Court erred in limiting the award, stating that the Tribunal’s broader award was in line with recent jurisprudence.
It also noted that no appeal for enhancement was filed by the claimants, and therefore, the Tribunal’s award must be reinstated but not increased.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s compensation award of ₹23,07,000. The amounts must be disbursed with interest within two months to the wife, children, and parents, equally. If any of the children are still minors, their amounts are to be deposited in fixed deposits, with interest payable to the mother as guardian.
Implications
- Reinforces the view that claims by dependents must be considered in light of real-world earning capacities, not just documentary evidence or statutory minimums.
- Affirms evolving jurisprudence that extends loss of consortium compensation to all close family members, not just the spouse.
- Strengthens the evidentiary value of witness statements like those of co-workers (in this case, PW2).
- Cautions High Courts against interfering with Tribunal findings unless clearly erroneous or unsupported.
