This News was first reported in LiveLaw.
The Supreme Court recently increased compensation in a motor accident claim due to the deceased’s income from multiple jobs. Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal overturned the High Court’s decision to reduce the claim amount. They emphasised that compensation assessments shouldn’t be strictly mathematical but fair and just.
Context and Assessment
- Income Evaluation: The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 recognises the need to assess compensation fairly. In light of the evidence presented by the claimants, it is reasonable to estimate the deceased’s monthly income at ₹35,000. This assessment considers the labour contributed by the deceased in agricultural activities.
- Age Consideration: The deceased was 52 years old at the time of the accident. Considering this age, the court arrived at the proposed income figure.
Previous Decisions
- Claim Tribunal Decision: The Claim Tribunal initially determined the compensation to be ₹51,64,550 based on a monthly salary of ₹50,000.
- High Court’s Reduction: However, the High Court later reduced the compensation to ₹22,48,000, considering a monthly salary of only ₹20,000. This reduction prompted an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Appellant’s Argument
The appellant, representing the legal heirs of the deceased, contested the High Court’s decision. They argued that the reduction from ₹50,000 to ₹20,000 per month was unjustified, as the deceased had additional income streams beyond a regular job.
Additional Income Sources
According to the appellant’s submissions:
- Milk and Coconuts: The deceased supplemented their income by supplying milk and coconuts.
- Paddy Cultivation: The deceased was actively involved in paddy cultivation on their land.
- Banana Harvest: Earnings also came from selling bananas grown on the family-owned land.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court recognised that the deceased’s income was multifaceted, extending beyond a conventional 9-5 job. While mathematical precision may not fully capture the nuances, the court emphasised the need for just and equitable compensation.
Download the Judgement Here.