Date of the Judgment: October 1, 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 6152 of 2021 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 6466 of 2019)
Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Can parents who have lost their adult son in a motor vehicle accident claim compensation for loss of dependency and consortium, even if they were not financially dependent on him? The Supreme Court addressed this question while hearing an appeal for enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim. The Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the parents of the deceased, recognizing their right to parental consortium and dependency, even if they were not directly financially dependent on their son. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, with the opinion authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.
Case Background
On February 27, 2016, Shivpal, a 32-year-old driver, died in a motor vehicle accident in Ajmer, Rajasthan. The accident occurred when a truck trailer driven by the 1st respondent rammed into Shivpal’s vehicle. Shivpal’s parents, wife, minor son, brother, and sister filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, Rajasthan, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking Rs. 93,08,000 with 15% interest. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,99,700 with 6% interest. Dissatisfied with the compensation, Shivpal’s parents appealed to the High Court, which dismissed their appeal. Consequently, the parents approached the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| February 27, 2016 | Shivpal dies in a motor vehicle accident. |
| 2016 | Claimants filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 |
| November 25, 2017 | Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal awards Rs. 10,99,700 as compensation. |
| July 6, 2018 | High Court dismisses the appeal filed by the parents. |
| October 1, 2021 | Supreme Court allows the appeal partly and enhances the compensation. |
Course of Proceedings
The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,99,700, including Rs. 40,000 for consortium to the wife and minor child of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded only Rs. 10,000 each to the parents of the deceased, considering them not to be dependents. The High Court dismissed the appeal by the parents without considering the grounds raised in the appeal.
Legal Framework
The case was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with the application for compensation arising out of motor vehicle accidents. The Supreme Court also considered the concept of ‘parental consortium’ as established in previous judgments.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s income at Rs. 5,746 per month, based on minimum wage for skilled labor, instead of the actual income of Rs. 15,000 per month as stated by the deceased’s wife.
- The appellants contended that the Tribunal wrongly concluded that they were not dependents because they lived separately from their son.
- They further argued that they are also entitled to compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium’.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent argued that in the absence of documentary evidence to prove the deceased’s salary of Rs. 15,000 per month, the Tribunal correctly considered the minimum wage for skilled labor.
- The respondent relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kirti & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited to support their argument that there are no grounds to interfere with the High Court’s judgment.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ Submission: The Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s income and denying dependency. |
|
| Respondent’s Submission: The Tribunal correctly assessed the income and there is no ground to interfere. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,746 per month instead of considering the oral evidence of the wife stating that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000 per month.
- Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the parents were not dependents as they were living separately.
- Whether the parents are entitled to compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium’.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased? | The Court held that the Tribunal erred in taking the minimum wage as the sole basis for calculating the income of the deceased. The Court considered the oral evidence of the wife and the fact that the deceased was a heavy vehicle driver, fixing his income at Rs. 8,000 per month. |
| Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the parents were not dependents? | The Court held that the Tribunal’s finding that parents cannot be treated as dependents was contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt). & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.. The court held that parents are entitled to compensation. |
| Whether the parents are entitled to compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium’? | The Court held that the parents are entitled to parental consortium of Rs. 40,000 each, relying on the judgment in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minu Rout & Anr. v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors. [2013] 10 SCC 695 | Supreme Court of India | The court used this case to determine the income of a driver in a similar accident case, setting a benchmark for the income of a driver in 2004 at Rs. 6,000 per month. | Assessment of income of a driver in motor accident cases. |
| Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. [2018] SCC OnLine SC 1546 = (2018) 18 SCC 130 | Supreme Court of India | The court relied on this case to award parental consortium of Rs. 40,000 to each of the parents. | Entitlement of parents to parental consortium. |
| Sarla Verma (Smt). & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009] 6 SCC 121 | Supreme Court of India | The court relied on this case to hold that parents are to be treated as dependents. | Parents can be treated as dependents. |
| Kirti & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [2021] 2 SCC 166 | Supreme Court of India | The court distinguished this case, stating it would not render assistance to the respondent’s case. | Assessment of income in motor accident cases. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s income at Rs. 5,746 per month. | The Court agreed that the Tribunal erred. It fixed the monthly income at Rs. 8,000, considering the oral evidence and the nature of the deceased’s job as a heavy vehicle driver. |
| Tribunal wrongly concluded that the parents were not dependents. | The Court held that the Tribunal’s finding was incorrect and contrary to the judgment in Sarla Verma (Smt). & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.. The Court held that the parents are entitled to compensation. |
| Appellants are entitled to compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium’. | The Court agreed and awarded Rs. 40,000 each to the parents as parental consortium based on the judgment in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Minu Rout & Anr. v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors. [2013] 10 SCC 695: The Court used this case as a benchmark to determine the income of a driver in a similar accident case.
- Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. [2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546 = (2018) 18 SCC 130]: The Court relied on this case to award parental consortium of Rs. 40,000 to each of the parents.
- Sarla Verma (Smt). & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009] 6 SCC 121: The Court relied on this case to hold that parents are to be treated as dependents.
- Kirti & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [2021] 2 SCC 166: The Court distinguished this case, stating it would not render assistance to the respondent’s case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The oral evidence of the deceased’s wife, which indicated that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000 per month.
- The fact that the deceased was a heavy vehicle driver, which implies a higher income than the minimum wage for skilled labor.
- The principle that parents are entitled to compensation as dependents, as established in Sarla Verma (Smt). & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
- The concept of parental consortium, which recognizes the loss of love and affection suffered by parents due to the death of their child, as established in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Consideration of Oral Evidence | 30% |
| Nature of Job | 25% |
| Parents as Dependents | 25% |
| Parental Consortium | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 45% |
| Law | 55% |
Fact: The factual aspects of the case, such as the deceased’s job as a heavy vehicle driver and his wife’s testimony, were considered.
Law: The legal principles established in previous cases, such as the concept of parental consortium and the definition of dependents, were applied.
Logical Reasoning:
The Court rejected the Tribunal’s assessment of income based on minimum wage, stating that it should not be detached from reality. The Court also rejected the Tribunal’s finding that the parents were not dependents, citing the judgment in Sarla Verma. The Court considered the concept of parental consortium and awarded compensation to the parents based on the judgment in Magma General Insurance. The Court enhanced the compensation for loss of dependency by taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000 per month, adding 40% towards future prospects, and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. The court also awarded Rs. 40,000 each to the parents as parental consortium.
“In 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.”
“Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income.”
“The finding of the Tribunal that parents cannot be treated as dependents runs contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt). & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.”
Key Takeaways
- In the absence of documentary evidence, the income of the deceased can be determined by considering oral evidence and the nature of the job.
- Parents are considered dependents and are entitled to compensation for loss of dependency, even if they were not financially dependent on the deceased.
- Parents are entitled to parental consortium, which recognizes the loss of love and affection suffered due to the death of their child.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellants are entitled to a further compensation amount of Rs. 3,33,964 on account of loss of dependency and a consortium amount of Rs. 40,000 each. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants is fixed at Rs. 4,13,964 with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition.
Development of Law
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that parents are considered dependents and are entitled to compensation for loss of dependency, even if they were not financially dependent on the deceased. The judgment also reiterated the concept of parental consortium, recognizing the emotional loss suffered by parents due to the death of their child. This case clarifies that in the absence of documentary proof of income, oral evidence and nature of job can be considered to determine the income of the deceased.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, enhancing the compensation awarded to the parents of the deceased. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should not solely rely on minimum wage notifications to determine income and should consider oral evidence and the nature of the job. The Court also reiterated that parents are entitled to compensation as dependents and are eligible for parental consortium.