Minimum Wage Notification Not An Absolute Yardstick To Fix Income Of Deceased In Absence Of Salary Certificate

Key Takeaways

• The name of the case is Chandra @ Chandra V. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Others and is related to an accident that comes under the Motor Vehicles Act.
• It was a plea asking for compensation by the parents of the deceased who died in a vehicle accident.
• They challenged the Tribunal's mathematically calculated compensation by fixing the monthly income of the deceased.
• The case was decided by a Bench consisting of Justice Subash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

Background

• The deceased person was an employed driver of a heavy vehicle who died in an accident. He came on the wrong side and hit a vehicle resulting in his death.
• The parents of the deceased had filed an application asking for compensation before the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunals under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
• The Tribunal provided the compensation by taking into account the monthly salary of the deceased (which was as stated by the wife Rs.15,000 per month) by adopting the minimum wage of skilled labour notified in 2016. The compensation also included consortium to the wife and the minor.
• The Learned Counsel of the appellant contended that the compensation had been granted taking into consideration only the monthly salary at Rs.5746 p/a and was therefore, inadequate.
• He also said that the court made a mistake in calculating the salary of the deceased and also made an error in recording that the appellants are not dependant as they were living separately.
• The appeals were rejected by the High Court and so they approached the Supreme Court to challenge the above issues.

Courts Observation

• The Court observed that the appeals were rejected by the High Court without considering the grounds for such appeals.
• The Court found out that the deceased driver had a valid driving license for the truck at the time of the accident and it was also proved from the record of evidence.
• The Court stated that there was no reason for the court to repudiate the oral evidence of the wife who stated that the monthly income of her husband was Rs. 15,000.
• Regarding the decision of the High Court to compensate by taking into account the monthly salary of the deceased according to the minimum wage notified of the skilled labour, the Court observed that in the absence of a salary certificate the minimum wage can be a yardstick but at the same time it is not an absolute necessity to fix the income of the deceased.

Courts Order

• The court fixed the monthly income of the deceased driver as Rs.8000 per month. The reason for this being the massive rise of motor vehicles, the oral evidence, and the demand for good drivers.
• The Bench also ordered those claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 14,33,664 and the parents are entitled for Rs.4,13,96.

Do you think the Tribunals had a fair reason to decide the minimum wage of the deceased? Does an error in the findings by the High Court showcase the inefficiency of the High Court in particular and the judiciary as a whole? Share your views in the comments section.