Holding

The Court held that the deceased's income must be fixed at the statutory minimum wage of Rs 15,600 per month under the Kerala Fair Wages Act, leading to a higher loss‑of‑dependency award, and that the insurer cannot challenge the non‑conventional heads after acquiescing to the High Court’s order.

Summary

The deceased, a 32‑year‑old fish‑vendor‑cum‑driver, died in a 2015 road accident caused by a rash driver of a car insured by United India Insurance Co. The claimants (wife, minor son and mother) sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including loss of dependency. The Tribunal awarded Rs 32,39,000, which the High Court reduced to Rs 19,70,000, chiefly by fixing the deceased's monthly income at Rs 10,000. The Supreme Court held that the Kerala Fair Wages Act, 1971 and the 2015 notification fixing a minimum wage of Rs 15,600 for a skilled driver must be taken into judicial notice, and that the deceased’s notional income should be based on this statutory minimum. Applying the standard formula (age multiplier, future prospect increase, personal expense deduction), the Court recalculated loss of dependency at Rs 27,95,520 and, adding other heads, total compensation at Rs 29,73,520 with 9% interest. The Court also declined to entertain the insurer’s challenge to the non‑conventional heads because it had not appealed the High Court’s order on those heads. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the High Court’s reduction.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was correct in reducing the deceased's notional monthly income from Rs 17,500 to Rs 10,000 in the absence of sufficient documentary evidence.
Whether compensation under non‑conventional heads (loss of love and affection) is permissible in motor accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 57
Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Payment of Fair Wages Act, 1971s. 2
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 166, s. 168

Subjects

Motor Vehicles ActCompensationLoss of dependencyMinimum wagesJudicial noticeNon‑conventional headsInsurance liabilitySection 168Section 57Kerala Fair Wages Act

Judgment

[2022] 18 S.C.R. 455 455

MANUSHA SREEKUMAR & ORS. A
v.
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 7593 of 2022)
OCTOBER 17, 2022 B
[SURYA KANT AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation– Income of
deceased, fixed considering minimum wages notification – Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.57 – Kerala Motor Transport Workers’
C
Payment of Fair Wages Act, 1971 – s.2 – Deceased met with a fatal
accident in 2015 while riding his motorcycle, offending car was
insured by respondent-Insurance Company – Tribunal fixed the total
compensation of loss of dependency along with other heads at Rs.
32,39,000/- – High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.
19,70,000/- – On appeal, held: There exists sufficient evidence to D
show that the Deceased was a fish vendor-cum-driver with a valid
license – No reason to doubt that he was a driver at the time of his
death – In the absence of a salary certificate, the minimum wages
notification along with some amount of guesswork that is not
completely detached from reality shall act as a yardstick to determine
E
the income of the deceased – Thus, judicial notice of the Kerala
Fair Wages Act taken which classifies a driver as a “Skilled worker”
– Reading this in conjunction with Notification prescribing minimum
wages for skilled worker, that came into effect from 01.01.15
amending the Kerala Fair Wages Act, a ‘driver’ in Kerala earned a
minimum of Rs. 15,600/- in 2015 – Thus, final notional income of F
the Deceased fixed at Rs.15,600 /- (Rs. 1,87,200/- p.a) – Since the
Deceased was 32 years old at the time of his death, the multiplier
applied is 16 – 40% of increase for future prospects added as he
was self-employed – One-third of the Deceased’s income deducted
towards his personal expense as he had three dependents – Hence,
G
the compensation payable to the appellants under the head of loss
of dependency is Rs.27,95,520/- – Upon adding the remaining
amount granted by High Court under different heads, the total
compensation comes to Rs. 29,73,520/-, to be paid by Insurance
Company with 9% interest.
H
455
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.168 – Held: s.168 makes it
imperative to grant compensation that appears to be just – Adequate
compensation is considered to be fair and equitable compensation
– Courts shoulder the responsibility of deciding adequate
compensation on a case-to-case basis.
B Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Just compensation – Factors to
be established – Held: As laid down in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC
and Ors., the three factors are: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income
of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependents.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Loss of
C dependency – Issues to be determined by Tribunal – Held: The issues
that are to be determined to arrive at the loss of dependency are-
additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; the
deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the
deceased; and the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age
of the deceased.
D
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation under non-
-conventional heads, if to be granted – Plea of Insurance Company
that the High Court ought not to have granted any compensation to
the appellants, under the ‘non-conventional heads’ which is
impermissible as per the dictum of Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi –
E Held: Insurance Company chose not to file any appeal against the
judgment of the High Court – Having acquiesced, the Insurance
Company cannot turn around and question a paltry amount of
compensation awarded under the said head – However, question of
law kept open.
F Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 While determining compensation under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 168 of the Act makes it
imperative to grant compensation that appears to be just. The
Act being a social welfare legislation operates through economic
G conception in the form of compensation, which renders way to
corrective justice. Compensation acts as a fulcrum to bring
equality between the wrongdoer and the victim, whenever the
equality gets disturbed by the wrongdoer’s harm to the victim. It
also endeavors to make good the human suffering to the extent
possible and to also save families which have lost their
H
MANUSHA SREEKUMAR & ORS. v. THE UNITED INDIA 457
INSURANCE CO. LTD.

breadwinners from being pushed to vagrancy. Adequate A
compensation is considered to be fair and equitable
compensation. Courts shoulder the responsibility of deciding
adequate compensation on a case-to-case basis. However, it is
imperative for the courts to grant such compensation which has
nexus to the actual loss. This Court, in the case of Sarla Verma
B
and Ors. v. DTC and Ors., laid down an objective formula for
calculating just compensation. According to the dictum, the three
factors that need to be established are: (a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependents.
Further, the issues that are to be determined by the Tribunal to
arrive at the loss of dependency are: (i) additions/deductions to C
be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made
towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii)
the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the
deceased.” The purpose of standardising these determinants was
to bring uniformity to the decisions and settle claims without
D
delay. Applying the parameters to the instant case, there exists
sufficient evidence to show that the Deceased, undoubtedly, was
a fish vendor-cum-driver with a valid license. The certificate
issued by the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund
Board, certifying the Deceased as the driver of light moto goods
vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-36-B-7822 under the E
ownership of one ‘P’ has been proved on record. Further, the
Deceased had also paid all his subscriptions to the Board from
April 2012 until the month he died. The Court find no reason to
doubt that the Deceased was a driver at the time of his death. In
the absence of a salary certificate, the minimum wages notification
F
along with some amount of guesswork that is not completely
detached from reality shall act as a yardstick to determine the
income of the deceased. In this context, keeping in view the import
of section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, judicial notice is
taken of the provisions of the Kerala Fair Wages Act, especially
section 2 thereof. [Paras 16-19][464-C-G; 465-A-C] G
Chandra Alias Chanda Alias Chandraram and Anr. v.
Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Ors. (2022) 1 SCC 198 :
2021 (9) JT 442 – relied on.

H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A 1.2 Schedule B-Category III of the Kerala Fair Wages Act
classifies a driver as a “Skilled worker”. Reading this in
conjunction with the Notification that came into effect from
01.01.2015 which amended Schedule A of the Kerala Fair Wages
Act, prescribing a minimum pay scale of the workers listed in
Schedule B, it is apparent that a ‘driver’ in Kerala earned a
B minimum of Rs. 15,600/- in 2015. It appears that the aforesaid
Act and the notification issued thereunder were not brought to
the notice of the Tribunal or the High Court. As a result thereto,
the High Court could not be cognizant of the statutory mandate
prescribing minimum wages for a skilled worker like ‘driver’,
C and thus, erred in fixing the income of the Deceased at Rs.10,000/
-. The final notional income of the Deceased must thus be fixed
at Rs.15,600/- (Rs.1,87,200/- per annum). Since the Deceased
was of 32 years old at the time of his death, the multiplier
applicable in the instant case would be 16, and 40% of increase
for future prospects deserves to be added as the Deceased was
D self-employed. One-third of the Deceased’s income would be
deducted towards his personal expense as he had three
dependents. Hence, the compensation payable to the Appellants
under the head of loss of dependency would amount to
Rs.27,95,520/- (Rs. 15,600 x 140/100 x 12 x 16 x 2/3). Upon adding
E the remaining amount granted by the High Court under different
heads, the total compensation granted to the Appellant comes to
Rs. 29,73,520/- (Rs.27,95,520/- + Rs. 1,78,000/-). [Paras 20-22,
25][466-B-D, F-G; 467-C]
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 :
F [2011] 9 SCR 922; Syed Sadiq and Ors. v. Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC
735 : 2014 (1) JT 569 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13
SCR 100; Cholamandalam M/s General Insurance
G Company Ltd. V. Aarifa & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6020/
2019 vide order dt. 01.08.2019; The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Somwati & Ors SLP (Civil) Diary
No. 30766/2019 vide order dt. 24.09.2019; Sarla
Verma and Ors. v. DTC and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 121 :
[2009] 5 SCR 1098 – referred to.
H
MANUSHA SREEKUMAR & ORS. v. THE UNITED INDIA 459
INSURANCE CO. LTD.

See Gregory C. Keating, ‘Distributive and Corrective A
Justice in the Tort Law of Accidents’ (2000) 74 S Cal
L Rev 193 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 9 SCR 922 referred to Para 8
B
[2017] 13 SCR 100 referred to Para 14
[2009] 5 SCR 1098 referred to Para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7593
of 2022.
C
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2019 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in M.A.C.A. No. 4102 of 2018.
Thomas P. Joseph, Sr. Adv., Bijo Mathew Joy, Tom Joseph, Vineeth
N., Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Advs. for the Appellants.
Pradeep Gaur, Sparsh Kant Nayak, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, D
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SURYA KANT, J.
1. Leave granted. E
2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 23.07.2019
passed by the High Court of Kerala, in an appeal preferred by the
Respondent (hereinafter, “Insurance Company”) against the award
dated 26.07.2018 of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala
(hereinafter, “Tribunal”). The High Court allowed the appeal and has F
reduced the compensation amount of Rs. 32,39,000/- granted to the
Appellants by the Tribunal to Rs. 19,70,000/-. The issue involved in the
instant matter primarily relates to the determination of quantum of
compensation awarded under various heads by the Tribunal and the High
Court.
G
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
3. On 21.02.2015, the dreams and aspirations of the 32-year-old
Deceased (Sreekumar) shattered when he met with a fatal accident
that occurred while he was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration
No. KL-36-C-9198 through Thalayolaparambu to Ernakulam Road,
H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A Kerala. At the time of the accident, the offending car bearing Registration
No. KL-07-BB-5053 was insured by the Respondent Insurance
Company and was allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner. The
car came from the opposite direction and dashed into the motorcycle
driven by the Deceased. As a result of the impact, Sreekumar fell and
sustained serious injuries. Though concerted efforts were made to save
B
the Deceased’s life, unfortunately, he succumbed to his injuries on the
way to the hospital.
4. Swaddled in the grief of the untimely death of their breadwinner,
Appellants approached the Tribunal seeking compensation for their loss.
It may be noted that the first Appellant is the wife of the Deceased, the
C second Appellant is their minor son, and the third Appellant is the mother
of the Deceased. Appellants jointly preferred a claim petition under
section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, “the Act”)
seeking compensation of Rs. 64,15,000/- with interest. The Insurance
Company confuted the claim contending that the accident occurred due
D to negligence of the Deceased. The amount of compensation claimed
under various heads was also alleged to be excessive.
5. The Appellants stood their ground by stating that they were
entitled to compensation for ‘loss of dependency’ as the Deceased was
a self-employed man who donned multiple hats so as to provide a
E comfortable living for his family. According to the Appellants, the
Deceased was a fish vendor-cum-driver and was earning at least Rs.
25,000/- per month. Appellants produced various documentary pieces of
evidence before the Tribunal to prove the Deceased’s financial capacity
while he was alive. These were - (i) a course certificate showing that
the Deceased had completed two years course in electronic mechanic
F trade; (ii) a job training certificate at Sun Generic Cables Pvt. Ltd.; (iii)
Passport of the Deceased indicating that he was employed in the Sultanate
of Oman between 18.11.2007 and 17.11.2011; (iv) a certificate to show
that the Deceased received rent from a shop in the Municipal market
shopping complex; (v) a job offer letter dated 11.12.2014 from the United
G Kingdom, offering the position of a Telecom Rigger; (vi) bank statements
of the Deceased and (vii) certificate of Kerala Motor Transport Workers
Welfare Fund Board.
6. Taking into consideration the aforementioned documentary
evidence concerning the Deceased’s income, the Tribunal concluded
H that he was a skilled labourer. It was also observed that the Deceased
MANUSHA SREEKUMAR & ORS. v. THE UNITED INDIA 461
INSURANCE CO. LTD. [SURYA KANT, J.]

was earning from the rent he received from the room leased out to A
conduct fish vending business. The Tribunal opined that the Deceased
was a driver and accordingly fixed his monthly income at Rs.14,000/-.
Additionally, assuming that the Deceased received at least Rs.3,500/- as
rent, the Tribunal calculated his final notional income as Rs.17,500/- (Rs.
14,000 + Rs. 3,500). The Tribunal fixed the total compensation of loss of
B
dependency along with various other heads at Rs. 32,39,000/- and
awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of
petition till the realisation of awarded compensation.
7. The Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court
challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. Though
the High Court concurred with the Tribunal in finding that the Deceased C
died in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the car
which was insured by the Insurance Company, it disagreed with the
Tribunal primarily on three counts. Firstly, compensation granted under
the head of ‘loss of dependency’; secondly, compensation under the
head of ‘pain and suffering’ and finally, compensation under the head of D
‘loss of love and affection’. For ease of reference, the table supplied
below elucidates the compensation granted by the courts below under
various heads:-

E

F

G

8. In relation to the first count, the High Court was swift in
concluding that in the absence of any evidence to establish the income
of the Deceased, the Tribunal had erroneously fixed his notional income H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A at Rs. 14,000/- per month. The High Court viewed that in the decisions
of Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Ltd.1 and Syed Sadiq and Ors. v. Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.2, this Court, in situations
where the monthly income of persons could not be established using
independent evidence, fixed it at Rs.4,500/- and Rs. 6,500/- for accidents
B
that took place in the years 2004 and 2008, respectively. On that
premises, the High Court posited that since the accident took place in
2015, the maximum monthly income that could have been reckoned is
Rs. 10,000/-. The compensation under the head of ‘loss of dependency’
was thus reduced to Rs. 17,92,000/-.
C 9. Regarding the second count, the High Court scaled down the
compensation granted by the Tribunal under the head of ‘pain and
suffering’ from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. The reasoning employed by
the High Court for this was that except in cases wherein the death was
not instantaneous, the conventional amount to be granted would be Rs.
D 15,000/-.
10. In relation to the third count, the High Court granted Rs. 50,000/
- and Rs. 40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection’ to the
second and third Appellants respectively, which was denied by the
Tribunal.
E 11. Consequently, the High Court substantially reduced the
compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 32,39,000/- to Rs.
19,70,000/-. The aggrieved Appellants are now before this Court.
B. CONTENTIONS:

F 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable
length and meticulously perused the documents on record. The liability
of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation is not in dispute
here. Nor there is any discordant concerning the compensation awarded
under various heads save and except for ‘loss of dependency’ and/or
under the non-conventional heads.
G
13. Mr. Thomas P. Joseph, learned senior counsel for the
Appellants vehemently argued that the High Court erred in placing
reliance on the decisions of this Court to assess the ‘loss of dependency’

1
(2011) 13 SCC 236.
2
H (2014) 2 SCC 735.
MANUSHA SREEKUMAR & ORS. v. THE UNITED INDIA 463
INSURANCE CO. LTD. [SURYA KANT, J.]

based on notional income as, in all those cases, not even a single piece of A
evidence was led regarding the income of the victim. However, in the
instant case, the Appellants produced sufficient documentary evidence
to prove the income of the Deceased. Moreover, it is trite that the power
of the Appellate Court to undertake a fact-finding exercise and interfere
with the reasoning of the Tribunal is limited. The same is done only
B
when the findings are perverse or there is a material omission on the
part of the Tribunal. He also brought to our notice, Schedule B of the
Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Payment of Fair Wages Act, 1971
(hereinafter, “Kerala Fair Wages Act”) as per which a ‘driver’ is
classified as a ‘Skilled worker’ under Category III-Skilled-B. This Act
was supplemented with the notification G.O.(Ms.) No. 123/2015/LBR C
dated 04.09.2015 issued by the Government of Kerala (hereinafter,
“Notification”) wherein, the pay scale for the year 2015 for each
category of workers in Schedule B of the Act has been stipulated. Learned
Senior Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Deceased being a
registered transport motor driver, was entitled to be considered as a
D
‘driver’ as defined under the Kerala Fair Wages Act and his income
was to be fixed in terms of the Notification, referred to above.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance company urged
that the High Court was right in reducing the compensation amount in
the absence of any definite proof of income and such a finding of fact
does not call for any interference. He further argued that the High Court E
erred in granting compensation of Rs.90,000/- under the head of ‘loss of
love and affection’ as this Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.3, has not granted any sum under such
like ‘non-conventional head’. Learned counsel relied on the decision of
this Court in Cholamandalam M/s General Insurance Company Ltd. F
V. Aarifa & Ors.4 and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Somwati
& Ors.5, wherein no amount under the head of ‘loss of love and affection’
has been held payable.
C. ANALYSIS
15. From the aforesaid discussion, two issues arise for consideration G
of this Court:

3
(2017) 16 SCC 680.
4
Civil Appeal No. 6020/2019 vide order dt. 01.08.2019.
5
SLP (Civil) Diary No. 30766/2019 vide order dt. 24.09.2019. H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A (i) Whether the High Court was right in reducing the monthly
income of the Deceased from Rs. 17,500/- to Rs.10,000/-,
for want of sufficient documentary evidence?
(ii) Whether the High Court was right in awarding
compensation under the ‘non-conventional heads’ which is
B impermissible as per Pranay Sethi?
C.1 Determination of Compensation for loss of dependency.
16. While determining compensation under the Act, section 168
of the Act makes it imperative to grant compensation that appears to be
just. The Act being a social welfare legislation operates through economic
C conception in the form of compensation, which renders way to corrective
justice.6 Compensation acts as a fulcrum to bring equality between the
wrongdoer and the victim, whenever the equality gets disturbed by the
wrongdoer’s harm to the victim. It also endeavors to make good the
human suffering to the extent possible and to also save families which
have lost their breadwinners from being pushed to vagrancy. Adequate
D
compensation is considered to be fair and equitable compensation. Courts
shoulder the responsibility of deciding adequate compensation on a case-
to-case basis. However, it is imperative for the courts to grant such
compensation which has nexus to the actual loss.
17. This Court, in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC and
E Ors.7, laid down an objective formula for calculating just compensation.
According to the dictum, the three factors that need to be established
are: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the
number of dependents.
18. Further, the issues that are to be determined by the Tribunal to
F arrive at the loss of dependency are: “(i) additions/deductions to be made
for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the
personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be
applied with reference to the age of the deceased.” The purpose of
standardising these determinants was to bring uniformity to the decisions
and settle claims without delay.
G
19. Applying the above parameters to the instant case, there exists
sufficient evidence to show that the Deceased, undoubtedly, was a fish
6
See Gregory C. Keating, ‘Distributive and Corrective Justice in the Tort Law of
Accidents’ (2000) 74 S Cal L Rev 193.
7
H (2009) 6 SCC 121.
MANUSHA SREEKUMAR & ORS. v. THE UNITED INDIA 465
INSURANCE CO. LTD. [SURYA KANT, J.]

vendor-cum-driver with a valid license. The certificate issued by the A
Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board, certifying the
Deceased as the driver of light motor goods vehicle bearing Registration
No. KL-36-B-7822 under the ownership of one Shri Prakashan has been
proved on record. Further, the Deceased had also paid all his subscriptions
to the Board from April 2012 until the month he died. We find no reason
B
to doubt that the Deceased was a driver at the time of his death. This
Court in Chandra Alias Chanda Alias Chandraram and Anr. v.
Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Ors.8, has aptly held that in the absence of
a salary certificate, the minimum wages notification along with some
amount of guesswork that is not completely detached from reality shall
act as a yardstick to determine the income of the deceased. In this C
context, keeping in view the import of section 57 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, we take judicial notice of the provisions of the Kerala Fair
Wages Act, especially section 2 thereof which defines the following
expressions:-
“2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise D
requires,-
(a) “employer” means in relation to any motor transport
undertaking, the person who or the authority which, has the
ultimate control over the affairs of the motor transport
undertaking, and where the said affairs are entrusted to any E
other person whether called a manager, managing director,
managing agent or by any other name, such other person ;
(b) “motor transport undertaking” means a motor transport
undertaking including a private carrier engaged in carrying
passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward ; F
(c) “motor transport worker” means a person who is employed
in a motor transport undertaking directly or through an
agency, whether for wages or not, to work in a professional
capacity on a transport vehicle or to attend to duties in
connection with the arrival, departure, loading or unloading G
of such transport vehicle and includes a driver, conductor,
cleaner, station staff, line checking staff, booking clerk; cash
clerk, depot clerk, time keeper, watchman, or attendant ;

8
(2022) 1 SCC 198. H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A (d) “fair wages” means the rate of wages payable to the motor
transport workers specified in the Schedule to this Act or the
agreed rate of wages whichever is higher.”
(emphasis applied)
20. Schedule B-Category III of the Kerala Fair Wages Act
B classifies a driver as a “Skilled worker”. Reading this in conjunction
with the Notification that came into effect from 01.01.2015 which
amended Schedule A of the Kerala Fair Wages Act, prescribing a
minimum pay scale of the workers listed in Schedule B, it is apparent
that a ‘driver’ in Kerala earned a minimum of Rs. 15,600/- in 2015. It
C appears to us that the aforesaid Act and the notification issued thereunder
were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal or the High Court. As a
result thereto, the High Court could not be cognizant of the statutory
mandate prescribing minimum wages for a skilled worker like ‘driver’,
and thus, erred in fixing the income of the Deceased at Rs.10,000/-. We
are therefore inclined to fix the income of the Deceased notionally at
D Rs. 15,600/- per month.
21. As regard to the rental income of the Deceased from leasing
out a room for the conduct of fish vending business, notionally fixed at
Rs.3,500/- by the Tribunal, we find no valid reason for making such
additions to the income of the Deceased as the rental income would be
E transferred to his legal heirs, who will continue enjoying the benefits
derived from it.
22. The final notional income of the Deceased must thus be fixed
at Rs.15,600 /- (Rs. 1,87,200/- per annum). Since the Deceased was of
32 years old at the time of his death, the multiplier applicable in the
F instant case would be 16, and 40% of increase for future prospects
deserves to be added as the Deceased was self-employed. One-third of
the Deceased’s income would be deducted towards his personal expense
as he had three dependents. Hence, the compensation payable to the
Appellants under the head of loss of dependency would amount to
G Rs.27,95,520/- (Rs. 15,600 x 140/100 x 12 x 16 x 2/3).
C.2 Determination of compensation under non-conventional
heads.
23. In all fairness, it may be noted that, Ld. Counsel for the
Insurance Company has urged that the High Court ought not to have
H granted any compensation to the Appellants, under the ‘non-conventional
MANUSHA SREEKUMAR & ORS. v. THE UNITED INDIA 467
INSURANCE CO. LTD. [SURYA KANT, J.]

heads’ which is impermissible as per the dictum of this Court in Pranay A
Sethi (supra). We are however, not inclined to entertain this plea for
the simple reason that the Insurance Company has not chosen to file
any appeal against the judgment of the High Court. Having acquiesced,
the Insurance Company cannot turn around and question a paltry amount
of compensation awarded to the Appellants under the ‘non-conventional
B
heads’. However, question of law, in this regard, is kept open.
D. CONCLUSION:
24. In light of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed in part.
25. We grant Rs. 27,95,520/- as the total ‘loss of dependency’
on account of the income of the Deceased being calculated at Rs. 15,600/- C
i.e. Rs.1,87,200/- per annum. Upon adding the remaining amount
granted by the High Court under different heads, the total compensation
granted to the Appellant comes to Rs. 29,73,520/- (Rs.27,95,520/- +
Rs. 1,78,000/-).
26. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced D
compensation amount of Rs. 29,73,520/- to the Appellants along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the date of realisation. The aforesaid amount shall be
apportioned among the Appellants in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal in the
award. The Insurance Company shall pay the said amount either by E
way of demand draft in favour of the Appellants or deposit the same
before the Tribunal, after deducting the amount already paid by it, if any,
within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
27. The judgment under appeal of the High Court is, thus, set
aside. The appeal is disposed of along with any pending applications in F
above terms.

Divya Pandey Appeal partly allowed.
(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)

G

H