Minimum wage notification cannot be absolute to fix the income of the deceased: Supreme Court of India

C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.64619 in the motor vehicle road accident on 27.02.2016 are before this Court claiming enhancement of compensation arising out of an The appellants are the parents 4th respondent is the wife 5th respondent is the minor son 6th respondent is the brother and 7th C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.64619 respondent nos.4 to 7 were the applicants in the application filed Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal Ajmer Rajasthan claiming compensation of Rs.93 08 000 ­ with interest the total compensation of Rs.10 99 700 ­ with interest @ 6% p.a. The High Court by impugned judgment dated 06.07.2018 dismissed the i.e. truck trailer bearing No.RJ­06­GA­6576. When he was driving 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 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 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.64619 other conventional heads. The Tribunal has held that accident 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 We have heard Sri Aditya Singh learned counsel for the that though the deceased was earning Rs.15 000 ­ per month being a heavy vehicle driver the Tribunal has awarded compensation on 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 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.64619 The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent has show the salary of the deceased at Rs.15 000 ­ per month the case of Kirti & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1 Having heard the learned counsels on both sides we have the outset we may note that the High Court by a cryptic order was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning 12 SCC 166 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.64619 adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year income of Shivpal same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of case of Minu Rout & Anr. v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors.2 occurred on 08.11.2004 has taken the salary of the driver of light 210 SCC 695 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.64619 on 27.02.2016 and it is clearly proved that the deceased was in possession of heavy vehicle driving licence and was driving such 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 entitled for differential compensation of Rs.3 33 964 ­. Further in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Magma General 3 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546 =18 SCC 130 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.64619 The judgment in the case of Kirti & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance 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 appellants is fixed at Rs.4 13 964 ­ with interest @ 6% p.a. from the 46 SCC 121

Summary: In absence of a 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 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through the learned bench of Justice R. Subhash Reddy, in the case of Chandra &amp; Anr Vs Mukesh Kumar Yadav &amp; Ors ] Civil Appeal No. 6152 Of 2021] (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019). Sri   Aditya   Singh was learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sahil Raveen was learned counsel for respondent no.3. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Shivpal was employed as a driver on the vehicle. When he was driving the vehicle on 27.02.2016, within the limits of Adarsh Nagar Police Station, Ajmer, a truck being driven by the 1st respondent, belonging to 2nd respondent and insured with 3rd respondent came on the wrong side and rammed into the vehicle of the deceased result of which Shivpal died. It was the case of the claimants before Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer 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 appellant parents alone have filed an 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. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that 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 was submitted that in spite of the evidence submitted by the wife of the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, the Tribunal has committed error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5746/­ as per the minimum wage notified to the skilled labor. The learned counsel for respondent no. 3 while relying on the judgment of Kirti  &amp;   Anr Vs Oriental   Insurance   Company   Limited 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/­ and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. Having heard the learned counsels on both sides, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that “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, the same does not justify the adoption of the 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.”