Deepak Singh Alias Deepak Chauhan vs Mukesh Kumar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 304

SANJAY KAROL, MANMOHAN
Deepak Singh Alias Deepak Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Kumar – Respondent

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.

Judgement Key Points

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

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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) .
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 con