MANUSHA SREEKUMAR vs. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.

  REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7593 OF 2022 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28833 OF 2019] Manusha Sreekumar & Ors.                                    …. Appellants VERSUS The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.                      .... Respondent JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The   present   appeal   arises   out   of   the   judgment   dated 23.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala, in an appeal preferred by the Respondent (hereinafter, “ Insurance Company ”) against   the   award   dated   26.07.2018   of   the   Motor   Vehicle Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2022.10.17 17:40:11 IST Reason: Accidents   Claims   Tribunal,   Pala   (hereinafter,   “ Tribunal ”).   The Page | 1 High   Court   allowed   the   appeal   and   has   reduced   the compensation   amount   of   Rs.   32,39,000/­   granted   to   the Appellants by the Tribunal to Rs. 19,70,000/­. The issue involved in the instant matter primarily relates to the determination of quantum of compensation awarded under various heads by the Tribunal and the High Court.  ACTUAL ACKGROUND A.   F  B   : 3. On 21.02.2015, the dreams and aspirations of the 32­year­ old Deceased (Sreekumar) shattered when he met with a fatal accident that occurred while he was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration   No.   KL­36­C­9198   through   Thalayolaparambu   to Ernakulam   Road,   Kerala.   At   the   time   of   the   accident,   the offending   car   bearing   Registration   No.   KL­07­BB­5053   was insured   by   the   Respondent   Insurance   Company   and   was allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner. The car came from   the   opposite   direction   and   dashed   into   the   motorcycle driven by the Deceased. As a result of the impact, Sreekumar fell and sustained serious injuries. Though concerted efforts were made to save the Deceased’s life, unfortunately, he succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital.  Page | 2 4. Swaddled   in   the   grief   of   the   untimely   death   of   their breadwinner,   Appellants   approached   the   Tribunal   seeking compensation   for   their   loss.   It   may   be   noted   that   the   first Appellant is the wife of the Deceased, the second Appellant is their minor son, and the third Appellant is the mother of the Deceased.   Appellants   jointly   preferred   a   claim   petition   under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, “ the Act ”) seeking compensation of Rs. 64,15,000/­ with interest. The Insurance   Company   confuted   the   claim   contending   that   the accident occurred due to negligence of the Deceased. The amount of compensation claimed under various heads was also alleged to be excessive.  The Appellants stood their ground by stating that they were 5. entitled to compensation for ‘loss of dependency’ as the Deceased was a self­employed man who donned multiple hats so as to provide   a   comfortable   living   for   his   family.   According   to   the Appellants, the Deceased was a fish vendor­cum­driver and was earning at least Rs. 25,000/­ per month. Appellants produced various documentary pieces of evidence before the Tribunal to prove the Deceased’s financial capacity while he was alive. These Page | 3 were ­   (i)   a course certificate showing that the Deceased had completed two years course in electronic mechanic trade;   (ii)   a job   training   certificate   at   Sun   Generic   Cables   Pvt.   Ltd.;   (iii) Passport of the Deceased indicating that he was employed in the Sultanate of Oman between 18.11.2007 and 17.11.2011;   (iv)   a certificate to show that the Deceased received rent from a shop in the Municipal  market shopping  complex;   (v)   a  job offer letter dated 11.12.2014 from the United Kingdom, offering the position of a Telecom Rigger;   (vi)   bank statements of the Deceased and (vii)  certificate of Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board.  6. Taking into consideration the aforementioned documentary evidence   concerning   the   Deceased’s   income,   the   Tribunal concluded that he was a skilled labourer. It was also observed that the Deceased was earning from the rent he received from the room leased out to conduct fish vending business. The Tribunal opined that the Deceased was a driver and accordingly fixed his monthly income at Rs.14,000/­. Additionally, assuming that the Deceased   received   at   least   Rs.3,500/­   as   rent,   the   Tribunal calculated his final notional income as Rs.17,500/­ (Rs. 14,000 + Page | 4 Rs. 3,500). The Tribunal fixed the total compensation of loss of dependency along with various other heads at Rs. 32,39,000/­ and awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the realisation of awarded compensation.  The   Insurance   Company   filed   an  appeal  before  the   High 7. Court challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. Though the High Court concurred with the Tribunal in finding that the Deceased died in an accident caused due to rash and   negligent   driving   of   the   car   which   was   insured   by   the Insurance Company, it disagreed with the Tribunal primarily on three counts.   Firstly,   compensation granted under the head of ‘loss of dependency’;   secondly,  compensation under the head of ‘pain and suffering’ and  finally ,   compensation under the head of ‘loss   of   love   and   affection’.   For   ease   of   reference,   the   table supplied   below   elucidates   the   compensation   granted   by   the courts below under various heads:­ 

Page | 5

8. In relation to the first count, the High Court was swift in concluding that in the absence of any evidence to establish the income of the Deceased, the Tribunal had erroneously fixed his notional   income   at   Rs.   14,000/­   per   month.   The   High   Court viewed that in the decisions of  Ramachandrappa v. Manager, 1 Royal   Sundaram   Alliance   Insurance   Company   Ltd.   and Syed Sadiq and Ors. v. Divisional Manager, United India 2 . , this Court, in situations where the monthly Insurance Co. Ltd income of persons could not be established using independent 1  (2011) 13 SCC 236.  2  (2014) 2 SCC 735.  Page | 6 evidence, fixed it at Rs.4,500/­ and Rs. 6,500/­ for accidents that took place in the years 2004 and 2008, respectively. On that premises, the High Court posited that since the accident took place in 2015, the maximum monthly income that could have been   reckoned   is   Rs.   10,000/­.   The   compensation   under   the head   of   ‘loss   of   dependency’   was   thus   reduced   to   Rs. 17,92,000/­.  Regarding the second count, the High Court scaled down 9. the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the head of ‘pain   and   suffering’   from   Rs.   30,000/­   to   Rs.   15,000/­.   The reasoning employed by the High Court for this was that except in cases wherein the death was not instantaneous, the conventional amount to be granted would be Rs. 15,000/­.  10. In relation to the third count, the High Court granted Rs. 50,000/­ and Rs. 40,000/­ under the head of ‘loss of love and affection’ to the second and third Appellants respectively, which was denied by the Tribunal.  Consequently,   the   High   Court   substantially   reduced   the 11. compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 32,39,000/­ to Rs. 19,70,000/­. The aggrieved Appellants are now before this Court.  Page | 7 ONTENTIONS B.   C :    12. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   at   a considerable length and meticulously perused the documents on record.   The   liability   of   the   Insurance   Company   to   pay   the compensation is not in dispute here. Nor there is any discordant concerning the compensation awarded under various heads save and   except   for   ‘loss   of   dependency’   and/or   under   the   non­ conventional heads. Mr.   Thomas   P.   Joseph,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the 13. Appellants   vehemently   argued   that   the   High   Court   erred   in placing reliance on the decisions of this Court to assess the ‘loss of dependency’ based on notional income as, in all those cases, not even a single piece of evidence was led regarding the income of   the   victim.   However,   in   the   instant   case,   the   Appellants produced sufficient documentary evidence to prove the income of the Deceased. Moreover, it is trite that the power of the Appellate Court to undertake a fact­finding exercise and interfere with the reasoning of the Tribunal is limited. The same is done only when the findings are perverse or there is a material omission on the part of the Tribunal. He also brought to our notice, Schedule B of Page | 8 the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Payment of Fair Wages Act, 1971   (hereinafter,   “ ”)   as   per   which   a Kerala   Fair   Wages   Act ‘driver’   is   classified   as   a   ‘Skilled   worker’   under   Category   III­ Skilled­B. This Act was supplemented with the notification G.O. (Ms.)   No.   123/2015/LBR   dated   04.09.2015   issued   by   the Government of Kerala (hereinafter,   ) wherein, the “Notification” pay   scale   for   the   year   2015   for   each   category   of   workers   in Schedule   B   of   the   Act   has   been   stipulated.   Learned   Senior Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Deceased being a registered transport motor driver, was entitled to be considered as a ‘driver’ as defined under the Kerala Fair Wages Act and his income was to be fixed in terms of the Notification, referred to above.  Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   Insurance   company 14. urged   that   the   High   Court   was   right   in   reducing   the compensation  amount  in  the absence of  any definite  proof  of income   and   such   a   finding   of   fact   does   not   call   for   any interference.   He   further   argued   that   the   High   Court   erred   in granting compensation of Rs.90,000/­ under the head of ‘loss of love   and   affection’   as   this   Court   in   National   Insurance   Co. Page | 9 3 Ltd.   v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. , has not granted any sum under such like ‘non­conventional head’. Learned counsel relied on the decision   of   this   Court   in   Cholamandalam   M/s   General 4 Insurance   Company   Ltd.   V.   Aarifa   &   Ors.   and   The   New 5 ,   wherein  no India   Assurance   Co.   Ltd.  V.   Somwati  &  Ors. amount under the head of ‘loss of love and affection’ has been held payable. NALYSIS C.   A     15. From   the   aforesaid   discussion,   two   issues   arise   for consideration of this Court: (i) Whether   the   High   Court   was   right   in   reducing   the monthly   income   of   the   Deceased   from   Rs.   17,500/­   to Rs.10,000/­, for want of sufficient documentary evidence? (ii)   Whether   the   High   Court   was   right   in   awarding compensation under the ‘non­conventional heads’ which is impermissible as per  ?  Pranay Sethi C.1  Determination of Compensation for loss of dependency.  3  (2017) 16 SCC 680. 4  Civil Appeal No. 6020/2019 vide order dt. 01.08.2019. 5  SLP(Civil) Diary No. 30766/2019 vide order dt. 24.09.2019.  Page | 10 16. While determining compensation under the Act, section 168 of   the   Act   makes   it   imperative   to   grant   compensation   that appears  to   be   just.   The   Act   being   a  social  welfare   legislation operates   through   economic   conception   in   the   form   of 6 compensation,   which   renders   way   to   corrective   justice. Compensation acts as a fulcrum to bring equality between the wrongdoer and the victim, whenever the equality gets disturbed by the wrongdoer’s harm to the victim. It also endeavors to make good the human suffering to the extent possible and to also save families which have lost their breadwinners from being pushed to vagrancy. Adequate compensation is considered to be fair and equitable   compensation.   Courts   shoulder   the   responsibility   of deciding   adequate   compensation   on   a   case­to­case   basis. However,   it   is   imperative   for   the   courts   to   grant   such compensation which has nexus to the actual loss.  17. This Court, in the case of   Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC 7 and Ors. ,   laid down an objective formula for calculating just compensation.   According to the dictum, the three factors that 6   See  Gregory C. Keating, ‘Distributive and Corrective Justice in the Tort Law of Accidents’  (2000) 74 S Cal L Rev 193. 7  (2009) 6 SCC 121.  Page | 11 need to be established are: ( a ) age of the deceased; ( b ) income of the deceased; and ( c ) the number of dependents. 18. Further,   the   issues   that   are   to   be   determined   by   the Tribunal   to   arrive   at   the   loss   of   dependency   are:   “( i ) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; ( ii ) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and ( iii ) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.” The purpose of standardising these determinants was to bring uniformity to the decisions and settle claims without delay.  19. Applying the above parameters to the instant case, there exists   sufficient   evidence   to   show   that  the   Deceased, undoubtedly, was a fish vendor­cum­driver with a valid license. The certificate issued by the  Kerala  Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board, certifying the Deceased as the driver of light motor   goods   vehicle   bearing   Registration   No.   KL­36­B­7822 under the ownership of one Shri Prakashan has been proved on record. Further, the Deceased had also paid all his subscriptions to the Board from April 2012 until the month he died. We find no reason to doubt that the Deceased was a driver at the time of his death.  This   Court   in   Chandra   Alias   Chanda   Alias Page | 12 8 Chandraram and Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Ors. , has aptly held that in the absence of a salary certificate, the minimum   wages   notification   along   with   some   amount   of guesswork that is not completely detached from reality shall act as a yardstick to determine the income of the deceased. In this context, keeping in view the import of section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, we  take judicial notice of the provisions of the Kerala Fair Wages Act, especially section 2 thereof which defines the following expressions:­  “2.         Definitions.­   In   this   Act,   unless   the   context otherwise requires,­  (a)  “employer”  means in relation to any motor transport undertaking, the person who or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the motor transport undertaking, and where the said affairs are entrusted to any other person whether called a manager, managing director, managing agent or by any other name, such other person ;  (b) “motor transport undertaking” means a motor transport undertaking   including   a   private   carrier   engaged   in carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward ;  (c)  “motor   transport   worker”  means   a   person   who   is employed   in   a   motor   transport   undertaking   directly   or through an agency, whether for wages or not, to work in a professional capacity on a transport vehicle or to attend to duties in connection with the arrival, departure, loading or unloading of such transport vehicle and includes a driver, conductor,   cleaner,   station   staff,   line   checking   staff, booking   clerk;   cash   clerk,   depot   clerk,   time   keeper, watchman, or attendant ;  (d)  “fair wages” means the rate of wages payable to the motor transport workers specified in the Schedule to this Act or the agreed rate of wages whichever is higher.” 8  (2022) 1 SCC 198.  Page | 13 ( emphasis applied )  20. Schedule   B­Category   III   of   the   Kerala   Fair   Wages   Act classifies   a   driver   as   a   “Skilled   worker”.   Reading   this   in conjunction   with   the   Notification   that   came   into   effect   from 01.01.2015 which amended Schedule A of the Kerala Fair Wages Act, prescribing a minimum pay scale of the workers listed in Schedule   B,   it  is   apparent   that   a   ‘driver’   in   Kerala  earned  a minimum of Rs. 15,600/­ in 2015. It appears to us that the aforesaid Act and the notification issued thereunder were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal or the High Court. As a result   thereto,   the   High   Court   could   not   be   cognizant   of   the statutory   mandate   prescribing   minimum   wages   for   a   skilled worker like ‘driver’, and thus, erred in fixing the income of the Deceased at Rs.10,000/­. We are therefore inclined to fix the income of the Deceased notionally at Rs. 15,600/­ per month.  As regard to the rental income of the Deceased from leasing 21. out a room for the conduct of fish vending business, notionally fixed at Rs.3,500/­ by the Tribunal, we find no valid reason for making such additions to the income of the Deceased as the Page | 14 rental income would be transferred to his legal heirs, who will continue enjoying the benefits derived from it.   22. The final notional income of the Deceased must thus be fixed   at   Rs.15,600   /­   (Rs.   1,87,200/­   per   annum).   Since   the Deceased   was   of   32   years   old   at   the   time   of   his   death,   the multiplier applicable in the instant case would be 16, and 40% of increase   for   future   prospects   deserves   to   be   added   as   the Deceased was self­employed. One­third of the Deceased’s income would be deducted towards his personal expense as he had three dependents. Hence, the compensation payable to the Appellants under   the   head   of   loss   of   dependency   would   amount   to Rs.27,95,520/­ (Rs. 15,600 x 140/100 x 12 x 16 x 2/3).  C.2  Determination of compensation under non­conventional heads. In all fairness, it may be noted that, Ld. Counsel for the 23. Insurance Company has urged that the High Court ought not to have   granted   any   compensation   to   the   Appellants,   under   the ‘non­conventional   heads’   which   is   impermissible   as   per   the dictum of this Court in  . We are however, Pranay Sethi (supra) not inclined to entertain this plea for the simple reason that the Insurance Company has not chosen to file any appeal against the Page | 15 judgment of the High Court. Having acquiesced, the Insurance Company cannot turn around and question a paltry amount of compensation   awarded   to   the   Appellants   under   the   ‘non­ conventional heads’. However, question of law, in this regard, is kept open.    D.   C ONCLUSION   : In light of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed in 24. part. 25. We grant Rs. 27,95,520/­ as the total ‘loss of dependency’ on account of the income of the Deceased being calculated at Rs. 15,600/­   i.e.   Rs.1,87,200/­   per   annum.   Upon   adding   the remaining   amount  granted  by  the   High  Court under   different heads, the total compensation granted to the Appellant comes to Rs. 29,73,520/­ (Rs.27,95,520/­ + Rs. 1,78,000/­).  26. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 29,73,520/­ to the Appellants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. The aforesaid amount shall be apportioned among the Appellants in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal in the award. The Insurance Company shall Page | 16 pay the said amount either by way of demand draft in favour of the Appellants   or  deposit  the   same   before  the   Tribunal,   after deducting the amount already paid by it, if any, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.   The judgment under appeal of the High Court is, thus, set 27. aside.   The   appeal   is   disposed   of   along   with   any   pending applications in above terms.  ………………….………..J. (SURYA KANT) ………………….………..J. (ANIRUDDHA BOSE) New Delhi: th October 17 , 2022 Page | 17