Motor Vehicle Accident Claim- parents living separately- are entitled to claim compensation on loss of dependency and parental consortium. | Lawmania
The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the appellants by entitling them compensation amount for account of loss dependency and consortium amount at Rs. 3,33,964/- and 40,000/- respectively, totaling 4,13,964 to be recovered from respondents/owner of the vehicle which caused accident and which killed the son of the appellants/parents.
The dependents of the deceased then made an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent/driver. The Tribunal, by a judgment, awarded compensation of RS. 10,99,700/- out which only Rs. 10,000 was awarded each to the appellant-parents. The appellant against the award of compensation moved an appeal to the High Court of Rajasthan where the Court dismissed by ‘cryptic order’.
Section 166 lays down the provision for making an application for claim of compensation arising out of an accident involving death or bodily injury or damages to any property of a third party.
Thus against the cryptic order of the High Court, the appellant/parents moved an appeal in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court rejected the finding of the Tribunal that parents cannot be treated as dependants just because they are living separately which is contrary to the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 221.
On perusal of the judgment of Tribunal, it was found that in the absence of salary certificate, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. On this the Supreme viewed that -
“In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage
notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one
to fix the income of the deceased. In the absence of documentary evidence on
record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time
the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached
from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence
to show the monthly income, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum
wage while computing”
Therefore, the Supreme Court setting aside compensation, at the rate of Rs 10,99,700/- fixed by the Tribunal, further fixed the compensation. The Court taking into account, that the deceased was a driver of a heavy vehicle (having license), considered the income as Rs. 8000/- for the purpose of loss of dependency, further 40% enhancement towards the loss of future prospects and at the same time deducting 1/3rd towards the deceased’s personal expenses. Accordingly, the income of the deceased was arrived at Rs. 7467/- per month which were then multiplied by 16 claimants which comes to Rs. 14,33,664/-.
Therefore since the amount of Rs. 10,99,700 was already paid towards the loss of dependency, the appellant/parents were held entitled for differential compensation of Rs. 3,33,964/-. And further according to the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors (2018) 18 SCC 130, the appellants were held entitled for parental consortium of Rs. 40,000/- totaling to Rs. 4,13,964 with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of claim petition.
DOJ: 1.10.2021
0 Comments