2021 INSC 0595 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6152 OF 2021 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019] Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram & Anr. …..Appellants Versus Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. …..Respondents J U D G M E N T R. Subhash Reddy, J. 1. Leave granted.  2. Unfortunate   parents   who   lost   their   son   aged   about   32   years in   the   motor   vehicle   road   accident   on   27.02.2016,   are   before   this Court   claiming   enhancement   of   compensation   arising   out   of   an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. The appellants are the parents; 4 th   respondent is the wife; 5 th respondent   is   the   minor   son;   6 th   respondent   is   the   brother;   and   7 th respondent is the sister of the deceased Shivpal.   The appellants and 1 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019 respondent   nos.4   to   7   were   the   applicants   in   the   application   filed under   Section   166   of   the   Motor   Vehicles   Act,   1988   before   the   Motor Vehicle   Accident   Claims   Tribunal,   Ajmer,   Rajasthan   (for   short,   ‘the Tribunal’)   claiming   compensation   of   Rs.93,08,000/­   with   interest   @ 15%   p.a.     The   Tribunal   by   judgment   dated   25.11.2017   has   awarded the total compensation of Rs.10,99,700/­ with interest @ 6% p.a.  The appellant­parents alone have filed appeal before the High Court.   The High   Court   by   impugned   judgment   dated   06.07.2018   dismissed   the appeal.  As such the appellants are before this Court.   4. The deceased Shivpal was employed as driver  on the vehicle, i.e.,   truck   trailer   bearing   No.RJ­06­GA­6576.     When   he   was   driving the   vehicle   on   27.02.2016,   within   the   limits   of   Adarsh   Nagar   Police Station,   Ajmer,   the   vehicle   –   truck   trailer   ­   bearing   no.RJ­14­GD­ 1156,   driven   by   the   1 st   respondent;   belonging   to   the   2 nd   respondent; and   insured   with   the   3 rd   respondent,   came   on   the   wrong   side   and rammed into the vehicle of the deceased resulting in the accident, as a result of which Shivpal died in the said accident.  5.   It   was   the   case   of   the   claimants   before   the   Tribunal   that deceased   Shivpal   was   in   possession   of   heavy   vehicle   driving   licence and   was   earning   Rs.15,000/­   per   month.     Apart   from   the   claim   on account of loss of dependency, they also claimed compensation on all 2 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019 other   conventional   heads.     The   Tribunal   has   held   that   accident occurred   due   to   rash   and   negligent   driving   of   the   vehicle,   driven   by the 1 st  respondent.  The Tribunal by taking into account the income of the   deceased   at   Rs.5746/­   per   month   has   awarded   a   total compensation   of   Rs.10,99,700/­   inclusive   of   consortium   of Rs.40000/­   to   the   wife   and   minor   child.     The   Tribunal   had   merely awarded   an   amount   of   Rs.10000/­   each   to   the   appellant­parents,   of the deceased.  6. We   have   heard   Sri   Aditya   Singh,   learned   counsel   for   the appellants and Sri Sahil Raveen, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 7. Mainly   it   is   contended   by   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants that though the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/­ per month, being a heavy   vehicle   driver,   the   Tribunal   has   awarded   compensation   on account of loss of dependency by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5746/­   per   month.     It   is   submitted   that   wife   of   the   deceased,   i.e. respondent   no.4   has   clearly   stated   in   her   deposition   that   deceased was   earning   Rs.15000/­   per   month.     It   is   submitted   that   inspite   of such   evidence   on   record   the   Tribunal   has   committed   error   in   taking the   income   of   the   deceased   at   Rs.5746/­   as   per   the   minimum   wage notified   to   the   skilled   labour.     Further   it   is   submitted   that   Tribunal has committed error in recording a finding that the appellants are not 3 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019 dependents as they were living separately.   Lastly it is submitted that appellants are also entitled to compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium’. 8. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   3 rd   respondent   has submitted  that in  absence of any  documentary  evidence on record  to show   the   salary   of   the   deceased   at   Rs.15,000/­   per   month   the Tribunal has correctly taken into account the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.5746/­.  By relying on a judgment of this Court in the case   of   Kirti   &   Anr.   v.   Oriental   Insurance   Company   Limited 1 , learned  counsel has submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.  9. Having   heard   the   learned   counsels   on   both   sides,   we   have perused the impugned order and other material placed on record.   At the   outset,   we   may   note   that   the   High   Court   by   a   cryptic   order dismissed  the  appeal  preferred  by  the appellants without considering the various grounds raised in the appeal. 10. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was   possessing   heavy   vehicle   driving   licence   and   was   earning Rs.15000/­ per month.   Possessing such licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on record. 1 (2021) 2 SCC 166 4 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019 Though   the   wife   of   the   deceased   has   categorically   deposed   as   AW­1 that   her   husband   Shivpal   was   earning   Rs.15000/­   per   month,   same was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed.   The Tribunal  has fixed  the  monthly  income of the  deceased  by adopting   minimum   wage   notified   for   the   skilled   labour   in   the   year 2016.   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.     In   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   of   Shivpal,   same   does   not   justify   adoption   of   lowest   tier   of minimum   wage   while   computing   the   income.     There   is   no   reason   to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that  late   Shivpal   was   earning   around   Rs.15000/­   per   month.     In   the case   of   Minu   Rout   &   Anr.   v.   Satya   Pradyumna   Mohapatra   &   Ors. 2 this  Court while  dealing  with  the  claim  relating  to  an  accident which occurred   on   08.11.2004   has   taken   the   salary   of   the   driver   of   light motor vehicle at Rs.6000/­ per month.   In this case the accident was 2 (2013) 10 SCC 695 5 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019 on   27.02.2016   and   it   is   clearly   proved   that   the   deceased   was   in possession   of   heavy   vehicle   driving   licence   and   was   driving   such vehicle on the day of accident.  Keeping in mind the enormous growth of vehicle population and demand for good drivers and by considering oral   evidence   on   record   we   may   take   the   income   of   the   deceased   at Rs.8000/­ per month for the purpose of loss of dependency.  Deceased was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident and as he was on fixed   salary,   40%   enhancement   is   to   be   made   towards   loss   of   future prospects.  At the same time deduction of 1/3 rd  is to be made from the income   of   the   deceased   towards   his   personal   expenses.     Accordingly the   income   of   the   deceased   can   be   arrived   at   Rs.7467/­   per   month. By   applying   the   multiplier   of   ‘16’   the   claimants   are   entitled   for compensation of Rs.14,33,664/­.   As an amount of Rs.10,99,700/­ is already paid towards the loss of dependency the appellant­parents are entitled   for   differential   compensation   of   Rs.3,33,964/­.     Further   in view   of   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Magma   General Insurance Company Limited   v.   Nanu  Ram  @  Chuhru  Ram  &  Ors. 3 the appellants are also entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/­ each.     The   finding   of   the   Tribunal   that   parents   cannot   be   treated   as dependents runs contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of 3 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546 = (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019 Sarla Verma (Smt). & Ors.   v.   Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 4 . The   judgment   in   the   case   of   Kirti   &   Anr.   v.   Oriental   Insurance Company Limited 1  relied on by the counsel for the respondent would not render any assistance in support of his case having regard to facts of the case and the evidence on record. 11. For   the   aforesaid   reasons   this   appeal   is   allowed   and appellants   are   entitled   for   further   compensation   amount   of Rs.3,33,964/­   on   account   of   loss   of   dependency   and   consortium amount of Rs.40,000/­ each.  Thus total compensation payable to the appellants  is  fixed  at  Rs.4,13,964/­   with  interest  @  6%  p.a.   from  the date of filing of claim petition. 12. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is partly allowed, with no order as to costs. ………………………………J. [R. Subhash Reddy]  ………………………………J. [Hrishikesh Roy] New Delhi. October 01, 2021. 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 7