A licensed heavy-vehicle driver’s income cannot be equated with unskilled minimum wages for compensation.

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of ₹15,00,000 for the death of the deceased in a motor accident.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kachchh at Bhuj, in MACP No. 981 of 2002, held the relevant opponents jointly and severally liable and awarded ₹6,05,500 with interest at 9% per annum, comprising ₹5,35,000 towards loss of dependency, ₹15,000 towards loss of estate, ₹15,000 towards funeral expenses and ₹40,000 towards loss of consortium.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging principally the assessment of the deceased’s income and the compensation under non-pecuniary heads.

The deceased was aged below 30 years, was employed as a heavy motor vehicle driver and possessed a licence authorising him to drive such vehicles.

The claimants relied on a driving licence at Exh.61 and a salary certificate showing monthly earnings of ₹6,000 at Exh.62.

The Tribunal had assessed his monthly income at ₹2,500.

The insurers did not challenge the findings on negligence or liability.

1. Whether the deceased’s monthly income ought to have been assessed above ₹2,500, having regard to his skilled occupation as a licensed heavy motor vehicle driver and the evidence at Exhs.61 and 62.

2. Whether the claimants were entitled to an enhanced amount under the principles governing future prospects, deduction for personal expenses, multiplier and conventional heads of compensation.

3. Whether the Tribunal’s award of ₹6,05,500 required modification and enhancement.

The appeal was governed by Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concerning claims for compensation arising from motor accidents and appeals against awards of the Claims Tribunal.

Compensation must be just, fair and reasonable, and income assessment must reflect the deceased’s occupation and the evidence on record rather than mechanically equating the earnings of a skilled worker with minimum wages.

The Court relied on Minu Rout v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra, (2013) 10 SCC 695, and Kala Devi v. Bhagwan Das Chauhan, AIR Online 2014 SC 81, regarding assessment of the income of truck/heavy vehicle drivers.

It applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for addition of future prospects and rationalisation of compensation under conventional heads.

For a deceased below 30 years, 40% was added towards future prospects; a multiplier of 17 was applied; and one-fourth of the enhanced income was deducted towards personal and living expenses, considering the number of dependants.

The Court held that the deceased’s valid licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle established that he was engaged in a skilled occupation and that his income could not fairly be equated with that of an unskilled or ordinary daily-wage worker.

Although the salary certificate at Exh.62 was not conclusive because its issuer had not been examined, the licence, the asserted income, the oral evidence, the deceased’s age and the nature of his work, considered cumulatively, justified fixing monthly income at ₹5,000.

Applying 40% future prospects, the monthly income became ₹7,000.

After deducting one-fourth for personal expenses, the annual dependency was calculated using a multiplier of 17, resulting in ₹10,71,000 for loss of dependency.

The Court further revised the conventional heads in accordance with Pranay Sethi, awarding ₹96,800 for loss of consortium, ₹18,150 for loss of estate and ₹18,150 for funeral expenses.

The total compensation was therefore recalculated at ₹12,04,100.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹6,05,500 to ₹12,04,100, resulting in an enhanced amount of ₹5,98,600, carrying interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realisation.

The concerned Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest within eight weeks of receiving the order.

Upon deposit, the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimants after verification and in accordance with due procedure, subject to deduction of court fees, if payable.

The Tribunal’s award was modified to that extent, and the connected civil application, if any, was disposed of.