/2022 INSC 0926/
   REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7593 OF 2022
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28833 OF 2019]
Manusha Sreekumar & Ors.                                    …. Appellants
VERSUS
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.                      .... Respondent
JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J.
1. Leave granted.
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
Page | 1

High   Court   allowed   the   appeal   and   has   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. 
A. F ACTUAL  B ACKGROUND :   
3. On 21.02.2015, the dreams and aspirations of the 32­year­
old   Deceased   (Sreekumar)   shattered   when   he   met   with   a   fatal
accident that occurred while he was riding his motorcycle bearing
Registration   No.   KL­36­C­9198   through   Thalayolaparambu   to
Ernakulam   Road,   Kerala.   At   the   time   of   the   accident,   the
offending   car   bearing   Registration   No.   KL­07­BB­5053   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 the Deceased’s life, unfortunately, he succumbed to
his injuries on the way to the hospital. 
Page | 2

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   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 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   self­employed   man   who   donned   multiple   hats   so   as   to
provide   a   comfortable   living   for   his   family.   According   to   the
Appellants,   the  Deceased  was  a  fish  vendor­cum­driver  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
Page | 3

were   ­   (i)   a   course   certificate   showing   that   the   Deceased   had
completed   two   years   course   in   electronic   mechanic   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 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   that   he   was   a   skilled   labourer.   It   was   also   observed
that the Deceased was earning from the rent he received from the
room   leased  out   to  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 +
Page | 4

Rs.   3,500).   The   Tribunal   fixed   the   total   compensation   of   loss   of
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 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
‘loss   of   love   and   affection’.   For   ease   of   reference,   the   table
supplied   below   elucidates   the   compensation   granted   by   the
courts below under various heads:­ 
SL.
No. Head of claim  Amount
awarded   by   the
High Court Amount
awarded   by   the
Tribunal  
1. Loss of dependency  Rs. 17,92,000/­ Rs. 31,36,000/­
2. Pain and sufferings  Rs. 15,000/­ Rs. 30,000/­
Page | 5

3. Loss   of   consortium
to the first Appellant Rs. 40,000/­ Rs. 40,000/­
4. Loss   of   love   and
affection   to   the
second Appellant  Rs. 50,000/­ Not allowed 
5. Loss   of   love   and
affection   to   the   third
Appellant Rs. 40,000/­ Not allowed 
6. Transport to hospital Rs. 3,000/­ Rs. 3,000/­
7. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/­ Rs. 15,000/­
8. Loss of estate  Rs. 15,000/­ Rs. 15,000/­
Total Compensation Rs. 19,70,000/­ Rs. 32,39,000/­
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   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
1
  (2011) 13 SCC 236. 
2
  (2014) 2 SCC 735. 
Page | 6

evidence, fixed it at Rs.4,500/­ and Rs. 6,500/­ for accidents 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/­. 
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. 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. 
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. 
Page | 7

B. C ONTENTIONS :    
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.
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’   based   on   notional   income   as,   in   all   those   cases,
not even a single piece of 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 fact­finding  exercise and interfere with the
reasoning of the Tribunal is limited. The same is done only 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
Page | 8

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
Skilled­B.   This   Act   was   supplemented   with   the   notification   G.O.
(Ms.)   No.   123/2015/LBR   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 ‘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   erred   in
granting compensation of Rs.90,000/­ under the head of ‘loss of
love   and   affection’   as   this   Court   in   National   Insurance   Co.
Page | 9

Ltd.   v.   Pranay Sethi and Ors. 3
,  has not granted any sum under
such like ‘non­conventional  head’. Learned counsel relied on the
decision   of   this   Court   in   Cholamandalam   M/s   General
Insurance   Company   Ltd.   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. A NALYSIS     
15. From   the   aforesaid   discussion,   two   issues   arise   for
consideration of this Court:
(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   ‘non­conventional   heads’   which   is
impermissible as per  Pranay Sethi ? 
C.1  Determination of Compensation for loss of dependency.  
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. 
Page | 10

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   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   compensation   is   considered   to   be   fair   and
equitable   compensation.   Courts   shoulder   the   responsibility   of
deciding   adequate   compensation   on   a   case­to­case   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   Ors. 7
,   laid   down   an   objective   formula   for   calculating   just
compensation.   According   to   the   dictum,   the   three   factors   that
6
  See  Gregory C. Keating, ‘Distributive and Corrective Justice in the Tort Law of Accidents’ 
(2000) 74 S Cal L Rev 193.
7
  (2009) 6 SCC 121. 
Page | 11

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   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. 
19. Applying   the   above   parameters   to   the   instant   case,   there
exists   sufficient   evidence   to   show   that   the   Deceased,
undoubtedly,   was   a   fish   vendor­cum­driver   with   a   valid   license.
The   certificate   issued   by   the   Kerala   Motor   Transport   Workers
Welfare Fund Board, certifying the Deceased as the driver of light
motor   goods   vehicle   bearing   Registration   No.   KL­36­B­7822
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 to doubt that the Deceased was a driver at the time of his
death.   This   Court   in   Chandra   Alias   Chanda   Alias
Page | 12

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
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 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   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 ; 
(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 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 ; 
(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.”
8
  ( 2022) 1 SCC 198. 
Page | 13

( emphasis applied ) 
20. Schedule   B­Category   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
minimum   of   Rs.   15,600/­   in   2015.   It   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 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
Page | 14

rental   income   would   be   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 instant case would be 16, and 40% of
increase   for   future   prospects   deserves   to   be   added   as   the
Deceased was self­employed. One­third 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). 
C.2  Determination of compensation under non­conventional
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   granted   any   compensation   to   the   Appellants,   under   the
‘non­conventional   heads’   which   is   impermissible   as   per   the
dictum   of   this   Court   in   Pranay   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
Page | 15

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   heads’.   However,   question   of   law,   in   this   regard,   is
kept open.   
D. C ONCLUSION :   
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/­   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
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
Page | 16

pay   the  said  amount  either  by  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 above terms. 
………………… .………..J.
(SURYA KANT)
………………… .………..J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
New Delhi:
October 17 th
, 2022
Page | 17