Supreme Court Increases Compensation for Parents of Deceased Truck Driver in Road Accident Case

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram & Anr. vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors., where it enhanced the compensation awarded to the parents of a deceased truck driver who died in a road accident. The Court held that the compensation initially awarded was inadequate and revised it upwards, recognizing the parents’ dependency and entitlement to fair compensation.

Background of the Case

The case involved the death of Shivpal, a 32-year-old truck driver, who died in an accident on February 27, 2016. He was driving a truck trailer when another truck, driven by the first respondent, came from the wrong side and rammed into his vehicle, resulting in his death.

Shivpal’s parents, along with his wife, minor son, brother, and sister, filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer. They sought compensation of ₹93.08 lakh with 15% annual interest. However, the Tribunal awarded only ₹10.99 lakh, leading to an appeal by the parents before the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court dismissed their appeal, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Parents of the Deceased)

The appellants, parents of the deceased, argued that:

Shivpal was earning ₹15,000 per month as a heavy vehicle driver, and the Tribunal had wrongly considered his monthly income as only ₹5,746 based on minimum wage notifications.
The Tribunal erred in holding that they were not dependents, as they lived separately.
They were entitled to parental consortium and compensation under various heads.

Respondent’s Arguments (Insurance Company)

The insurance company countered by arguing that:

In the absence of documentary proof of salary, the Tribunal was justified in relying on minimum wage rates.
The High Court’s decision was reasonable, and there were no grounds for further enhancement.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Was the Deceased’s Income Correctly Assessed?

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in applying the lowest tier of minimum wage when determining income. It emphasized:

“Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence does not justify adoption of the lowest tier of minimum wage. Some guesswork is necessary, but it should not be detached from reality.”

The Court determined that the deceased’s income should be considered as ₹8,000 per month.

2. Should Parents Be Considered Dependents?

The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal’s view that parents were not dependents was contrary to legal precedents. Citing Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, the Court ruled:

“Parents of a deceased individual should not be excluded from dependency considerations merely because they live separately.”

3. Is Additional Compensation Justified?

The Court noted that the deceased was in a stable job with a heavy vehicle license, warranting an addition for future prospects. It applied a 40% enhancement for future earnings and used a multiplier of 16.

The final calculation included:

Loss of dependency: ₹14.33 lakh
Parental consortium: ₹40,000 each for both parents
Total additional compensation: ₹4.13 lakh

Judgment and Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and awarded an additional ₹4.13 lakh to the deceased’s parents with 6% annual interest. The judgment reinforces the principles that:

Courts should not rely solely on minimum wage rates if reasonable evidence of income exists.
Parents of deceased individuals should be considered dependents when determining compensation.
Future prospects should be factored into loss of earnings calculations.

This ruling sets an important precedent for fair compensation in motor accident claims.

Judges: The judgment was delivered by R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy.

Petition Result: Partially Allowed

Petitioner Name: Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram & Anr..
Respondent Name: Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
Place Of Incident: Ajmer, Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 01-10-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: chandra-@-chanda-@-c-vs-mukesh-kumar-yadav-&-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-01-10-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Road Accident Cases
See all petitions in Compensation Disputes
See all petitions in Motor Vehicle Act
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Judgment by Hrishikesh Roy
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Accident Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Accident Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Accident Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Accident Cases Category