1. Fatal road accident caused by rash and negligent driving — Claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1322
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL AND PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Deepak Kumar And Others – Appellant
Versus
Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. And others – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2677 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18176 of 2023)
Decided on : 11-02-2025
The Court held that compensation for a deceased driver must be based on the prescribed minimum wage for skilled workers per government notifications. Additionally, appellate courts should recalculate compensation themselves rather than remitting the matter back to the Tribunal to avoid further litigation for claimants.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Sections pertaining to compensation determination - The Tribunal initially awarded compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- based on the deceased's notional income of Rs. 4,500/-, which was contested. The High Court revised this to Rs. 6,000/- monthly income, relying on prior judgments. However, the Court found the correct minimum wage for a driver in 2016 to be Rs. 10,920/- per month under the Ministry of Labour's notification. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 11)
(B) Authority of Courts in compensation calculations - The court emphasized not remitting cases for further compensation computation unnecessarily, thus facilitating justice for claimants. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was involved in an accident resulting in death while waiting for transport. His dependents sought claim under the argument that his earning capacity was grossly underestimated.
Findings of Court:
The fair compensation determined was Rs. 16,22,100/-, superseding prior awards.
Issues: The key issues were adequate determination of the deceased's monthly income as per minimum wage laws and jurisdiction boundaries for compensation recalculation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held the established minimum wage for skilled laborers should guide compensation assessments, criticizing lower courts for not directly adjusting compensation.
Result: Civil Appeal is allowed, with modified compensation.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over the assessment of the deceased's monthly income — Notional income versus prescribed minimum wage for skilled drivers. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Minimum wage notifications for skilled workers govern income assessment — Appellate courts should recalculate awards instead of remitting them to avoid further litigation. (Para 9 , 10 )
4. Compensation calculations must align with the prescribed minimum wage rates for the specific professional category of the deceased. (Para 9 )
5. Appeal allowed — Compensation recalculated based on minimum wage for skilled drivers — Award modified. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. How is the monthly income of a deceased driver determined for compensation purposes?
The income is determined based on the minimum wage fixed by the Ministry of Labour and Employment for skilled workers categorized as drivers. (Para 9 )
7. Should an appellate court remit a case to a tribunal for the mere recalculation of compensation?
No, the appellate court should perform the recalculation itself rather than remitting the matter to the tribunal to prevent subjecting claimants to further litigation. (Para 10 )
8. What takes precedence in determining income for compensation—notional income or government-notified minimum wages?
Government-notified minimum wages for the specific skilled professional category of the deceased take precedence over notional income assessments. (Para 9 )
ORDER :
Time taken for disposal of the claim petition Time taken for disposal of appeal by the High Court Time taken for disposal of the appeal in this Court
Approx. 5 years 8 months Approx. 9 months 1 year 6 months
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th December, 2022 in the First Appeal from Orders No.648 of 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which in turn was preferred against the judgment and order dated 26th August, 2021 passed in Claim Petition No. 370/2016 by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Firozabad.
3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 6th January, 2016, the deceased, namely Jaspal Singh, aged 44 years, was standing on the left side of the footpath, 200 meters behind the Kisrao intersection on Sirsaganj Mainpuri Road, waiting for a vehicle to go Sikohabad. The offending vehicle, bearing registration number UP-83J-6579, collided with the deceased in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in his death on the spot. In connection with this accident, an FIR No.49 dated 19th January, 2016 was registered under Sections 279 and 304A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against Respondent No. 3, namely Arjun Singh.
4. The Appellants (dependents of the deceased) filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.31,00,000/- along with 18% interest, submitting therein that the deceased was the only earning member of the family, working as agriculturist; a driver by profession; and earning up to Rs.15,000/- per month.
5. The Tribunal, by its Order dated 26th August, 2016 awarded the Appellants an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- along with interest 6% per annum, taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, the Claimant-Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court on the ground that the Tribunal has incorrectly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs .4,500/-, whereas the income of an employee in a private company, in the year 2016, was not less than Rs. 6,000/-.
6. The High Court vide the impugned order dated 14th December, 2022 partially allowed the appeal, accepting the contention of the Appellants by reassessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. This was based on the decision rendered by this court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130 . The High Court further directed the Tribunal to recalculate the compensation based on the revised income of Rs.6,000/- per month.
7. Dissatisfied with the order of re-calculation issued by the Tribunal, the Claimant-Appellant is now before us. The significant point of the challenge taken are that the Courts below have erred in computing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-, whereas, according to the revised minimum wage rate for 2016, the prescribed wages for a person working as a 'Driver' were Rs.364/- per day or, say Rs. 10,920/- per month.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the deceased. Adverting to the facts at hand, on perusal of the Notification issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 19th January 2017, annexed at Annexure P2, the minimum wages fixed for the Skilled worker working as a 'Driver' were Rs.364/- per day, amounting to Rs.10,920/- per month.
10. Also, the High Court ought to have reworked the compensation itself rather than remitting the matter to the Tribunal for the compensation to be recomputed, thus pushing the claimants to further litigation.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation now payable to the Claimant-Appellants is recalculated as under:-
CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION
Image
Thus, the difference in compensation is as under:-
MACT High Court This Court
Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.16,22,100/-
12. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned award dated 26th August, 2021 pas
