SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 304

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Manmohan, JJ.
Deepak Singh Alias Deepak Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 2255 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)No /2025 @ Diary No.236/2024)
Decided On : 10-02-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Bharat Bhushan, AOR Mr. Keshav Bansal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anand Sukumar, AOR Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Adv.

The court established that the notional income of a student should reflect their potential earning capacity, not minimum wage standards, leading to enhanced compensation.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Claim for compensation arising from a motor vehicle accident - The High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.7,09,303/- to Rs.23,90,719/- based on the notional income of the claimant-appellant, considering the principles established in Harpreet Singh case - The court emphasized that the notional income of a student should not be equated to that of an unskilled worker. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)

(B) Compensation Calculation - The court recalculated the compensation based on the notional income of Rs.10,000/- per month, considering various heads of loss including loss of income, medical expenses, and pain and suffering - The total compensation awarded was Rs.34,56,110/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The claimant-appellant was involved in a motorcycle accident on 12th October 2012, resulting in grievous injuries and the death of his friend. An FIR was registered, and the claimant filed for compensation. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the compensation awarded by the High Court was inadequate and recalculated it based on the notional income of the claimant-appellant. (Paras 6, 9)

Issues: The main issues were the appropriate calculation of compensation and the validity of using minimum wages as a basis for determining notional income. (Paras 6, 7)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the notional income of a student should reflect their potential earning capacity rather than minimum wage standards, thereby enhancing the compensation awarded. (Paras 7, 8)

Result: Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

  1. The court clarified that the notional income of a student should reflect their potential earning capacity rather than minimum wage standards, leading to an increase in the compensation amount (!) (!) .

  2. The accident involved a motorcycle collision resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant and the death of a companion, with the incident occurring in 2012 (!) (!) .

  3. The initial compensation awarded by the tribunal was Rs.7,09,303/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum, and the respondents (driver, owner, and insurer) were held jointly and severally liable, with the insurer primarily responsible for payment (!) (!) .

  4. The claimant appealed the award, arguing that the compensation was inadequate and that the notional income should not be based on minimum wages but on potential earning capacity (!) (!) .

  5. The court, exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, determined the notional income of the claimant to be Rs.10,000/- per month, considering the nature of the case and relevant legal principles (!) .

  6. Using the notional income of Rs.10,000/- per month, the court recalculated the compensation, considering various heads such as loss of income, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and future prospects, resulting in a total of Rs.34,56,110/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition (!) .

  7. The appeal was allowed, and the higher compensation amount was awarded, with the total payable amount to be deposited or paid as directed (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice.


JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Delay condoned.

Leave Granted.

2. This appeal is at the instance of the claimant-appellant, who is aggrieved by the order and judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.4651 of 2014 (O&M) dated 9th January, 2020. The appeal before the High Court was drawn against the judgment and order dated Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, in MACT Case No.3 of 8th January, 2013, passed on 25th September, 2013 1 [Hereafter, “MACT”].

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:-

On 12th October 2012, the claimant-appellant namely, Deepak along with his friend Bhagwan Singh were riding a motorcycle bearing No.HR-26-AJ- 5496, being driven by the latter, heading to Kulana, when they collided with a Scorpio, which was being driven at a fast pace, rashly and negligently, from the wrong side.

Bhagwan Singh succumbed to the injuries on the spot while the claimant- appellant suffered grievous injuries. FIR No.213 under Sections 279, 337, 304- A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, dated 13th October, 2012, was registered.

The Claimant-Appellant filed the claim petition on 7th January, 2013.

4. The learned MACT framed four issues for consideration, concerning the rashness and negligence of respondent No.1; entitlement of the claimant- appellant to compensation; liability of respondent No.3-insurer, to pay compensation; and the validity of the respondent’s driving license.

Having considered the evidence before it, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is as below : -

    “Relief :

    24. In view of findings of this Tribunal returned on the issues under adjudication, the petition is partly allowed with costs. A sum of Rs.7,09,303/- is awarded as compensation to the petitioner along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, out of which 50% shall, however, be paid to him in cash but the same shall be deposited in his bank account and remaining 50% shall be deposited for three years in fixed deposit account of any nationalized bank.

    25. All the respondents being driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. However, respondent No.3 insurance company being the main stakeholder would pay the entire amount of compensation to the claimant.

    26. Lawyer's fee is assessed at Rs.11,000/-. Memo of cost be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.”

    (Emphasis supplied)

5. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the claimant-appellant appealed before the High Court. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the Court relied on a judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 and the testimony of Dr. Arvind Mehra - PW6, along with the discharge summary(s). The total compensation as enhanced by the Court was Rs.23,90,719/- and the interest part remained undisturbed.

6. Further aggrieved, an appeal has been preferred before us. In advancing arguments, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant took issue with the High Court’s reliance on minimum wages to calculate compensation. This, he did while placing reliance on an order dated 13th January, 2020 of this Court passed in Civil Appeal No.278 of 2020 titled Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh. We find force in this submission of the claimant-appellant.

7. While dealing with the claim of compensation of a similarly placed individual, i.e., a student in his twenties, this Court in Harpreet Singh (supra) took exception to equating the notional income of an Engineering student to that of an unskilled worker the following terms -

    “13. But we do not think that the notional income of a student undergoing a Degree course in Engineering from a premier institute should be taken to be equivalent to the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled worker. Students recruited through campus interviews are atleast offered a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Even if we do no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top