2025 INSC 179
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE
SANJAY KAROL, J. AND HON’BLE MANMOHAN, JJ.)
DEEPAK SINGH ALIAS
DEEPAK CHAUHAN
Appellant
VERSUS
MUKESH KUMAR &
ORS.
Respondent
Civil
Appeal No(S). OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)No……………/2025 @ Diary No.236/2024)-Decided
on 10-02-2025
Compensation,
MACT
Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, Section 166 – MACT – Injury case - High Court placed reliance on
minimum wages to calculate compensation and the total compensation as enhanced
by the Court was Rs.23,90,719/- from Rs.7,09,303/- awarded by the Tribunal and the interest part
remained undisturbed - While dealing with the claim of compensation of a
similarly placed individual, i.e., a student in his twenties, this Court in
Civil Appeal No.278 of 2020 titled Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh took
exception to equating the notional income of an Engineering student to that of
an unskilled worker - In the present facts, the accident took place in the year
2012 – Held that reliance can be placed on Harpreet Singh case - In the
attending facts, taking the notional income to be Rs.10,000/- per month, the
compensation to be awarded would be recomputed in the following terms :-
|
Heads |
Final
compensation |
|
Income |
Rs.10,000/- |
|
Annual
income |
Rs.1,20,000/- |
|
70%
of annual income (permanent
disability) |
Rs.84,000/- |
|
Annual
income after adding 40% future
prospects |
Rs.1,17,600/-
(84,000 + 33,600) |
|
Multiplier
18 Loss of income |
Rs.21,16,800/- |
|
Medical
expenses |
Rs.5,69,303/- |
|
Attendant
charges |
Rs.50,000/- |
|
Loss
of amenities/prospects of marriage |
Rs.5,00,000/- |
|
Pain
and suffering |
Rs,2,00,000/- |
|
Special
diet |
Rs.20,000/- |
|
Disability |
- |
|
Enhancement |
Rs.10,65,384/- |
|
Total |
Rs.34,56,103/-
@ 7.5% |
The
total amount comes to Rs.34,56,110/- as also interest @ 7.5% per annum shall be
awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition before the learned
Tribunal, but will exclude the 642 days delay period, in preferring the appeal
before this Court.
(Para
6 to 9)
JUDGMNT
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[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 consideration, concerning the rashness
and negligence of respondent No.1; entitlement of the claimant appellant to
compensation; liability of respondent No.3-insurer, to pay compensation; and
the validity of the respondent’s driving license. Having considered the evidence before it, the
conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is as below : -
“ Relief :
24. In view of
findings of this Tribunal returned on the issues under adjudication, the
petition is partly allowed with costs. A sum of Rs.7,09,303/- is awarded as
compensation to the petitioner along with interest @7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition till realization, out of which 50% shall,
however, be paid to him in cash but the same shall be deposited in his bank
account and remaining 50% shall be deposited for three years in fixed deposit
account of any nationalized bank.
25. All the
respondents being driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.
However, respondent No.3 insurance company being the main stakeholder would pay
the entire amount of compensation to the claimant.
26. Lawyer's fee is
assessed at Rs.11,000/-. Memo of cost be prepared accordingly and file be
consigned to record room after due compliance.”
(Emphasis
supplied)
5.
Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the claimant-appellant
appealed before the High Court. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that
the Court relied on a judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar[(2011) 1 SCC 343] and the
testimony of Dr. Arvind Mehra - PW6, along with the discharge summary(s). The
total compensation as enhanced by the Court was Rs.23,90,719/- and the interest
part remained undisturbed.
6.
Further aggrieved, an appeal has been preferred before us. In advancing arguments,
learned counsel for the claimant-appellant took issue with the High Court’s
reliance on minimum wages to calculate compensation. This, he did while placing
reliance on an order dated 13th January, 2020 of this Court passed in Civil
Appeal No.278 of 2020 titled Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh. We find force in
this submission of the claimant-appellant.
7.
While dealing with the claim of compensation of a similarly placed individual,
i.e., a student in his twenties, this Court in Harpreet Singh (supra) took
exception to equating the notional income of an Engineering student to that of
an unskilled worker the following terms –
“13. But we do not
think that the notional income of a student undergoing a Degree course in
Engineering from a premier institute should be taken to be equivalent to the minimum
wages admissible to an unskilled worker. Students recruited through campus
interviews are atleast offered a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Even if we do
not go on the said basis, the High Court could have fixed the notional income
atleast at Rs.10,000/- per month.
14. Therefore, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, and by exercising our power under Article
142 of the Constitution of India, we take the notional monthly income of the
appellant as Rs.10,000/ per month.”
8.
In the present facts, the accident took place in the year 2012. Hence, reliance
can be placed on Harpreet Singh (supra). In the attending facts, taking the
notional income to be Rs.10,000/- per month, the compensation to be awarded
would be recomputed in the following terms :-
|
Heads |
Final
compensation |
|
Income |
Rs.10,000/- |
|
Annual
income |
Rs.1,20,000/- |
|
70%
of annual income (permanent
disability) |
Rs.84,000/- |
|
Annual
income after adding 40% future
prospects |
Rs.1,17,600/-
(84,000 + 33,600) |
|
Multiplier
18 Loss of income |
Rs.21,16,800/- |
|
Medical
expenses |
Rs.5,69,303/- |
|
Attendant
charges |
Rs.50,000/- |
|
Loss
of amenities/prospects of marriage |
Rs.5,00,000/- |
|
Pain
and suffering |
Rs,2,00,000/- |
|
Special
diet |
Rs.20,000/- |
|
Disability |
- |
|
Enhancement |
Rs.10,65,384/- |
|
Total |
Rs.34,56,103/-
@ 7.5% |
9.
The total amount comes to Rs.34,56,110/- as also interest @ 7.5% per annum
shall be awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition before the learned
Tribunal, but will exclude the 642 days delay period, in preferring the appeal
before this Court.
10.
The appeal is allowed as aforesaid. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of accordingly.
------