Case Title: Manusha Sreekumar vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd |(SC) 858 | CA 7593 OF 2022 | 17 October 2022 | Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose
Summary
The Supreme Court ruled that the “minimum wages notification” can be used to determine the notional income of a deceased in motor accident claim cases. The deceased, a fish vendor and driver, earned a minimum of Rs. 25,000 per month. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs. 14,000, and his ultimate fictitious income was Rs. 17,500. The High Court, however, determined that the highest monthly income could have been calculated at 10,000 rupees, reducing the award of compensation from Rs. 32,39,000 to Rs. 19,70,000. The court acknowledged that the driver was classified as a “skilled worker” under the Kerala Fair Wages Act, and that the High Court erred in determining the deceased’s income to be Rs. 10,000/. The Insurance Company expressed concern regarding the method of calculating compensation for non-standard topics, but the High Court refused to accept the plea.
About the case
The Supreme Court noted that in motor accident claim cases, the “minimum wages notification” may be utilized to ascertain the notional income of the deceased. In accordance with the claimants, the deceased earned a minimum of Rs. 25,000 per month as a fish vendor and driver. The Deceased was determined to be a driver by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which assessed his monthly income at Rs.14,000. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined the deceased’s ultimate fictitious income to be Rs. 17,500, presuming he received a minimum of Rs. 3,500 in rent. Upon review of the appeal, the High Court determined that the highest monthly income that could have been calculated is 10,000 rupees. As a result, the High Court heavily reduced the award of compensation from Rs. 32,39,000 to Rs. 19,70,000, as determined by the Tribunal.
In support of the appellants-claimants, Senior Advocate Thomas P. Joseph apprised the court of the classification of a ‘driver’ as a skilled worker’ under Category III Skilled B, as stated in Schedule B of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Payment of Fair Wages Act, 1971. Additionally, he made reference to the Government of Kerala’s notification G.O. (Ms.) No. 123/2015/LBR dated 04.09.2015, which details the pay scale for labor in Schedule B of the Act for the year 2015. It was maintained that the Deceased, in his capacity as a registered transport motor driver, qualified to be classified as a “driver” as per the Kerala Fair Wages Act.
Furthermore, it was argued that his income should be determined in accordance with the Notification. In support of this assertion, the bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose observed that adequate evidence is available to demonstrate that the individual in question was a licensed fish vendor and driver. The court acknowledged that a prior decision in Chandra Alias Chanda Chandraram v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav (2022) 1 SCC 198 stated that when a salary certificate is not available, the notification of minimum wages and a degree of approximation that is not entirely arbitrary shall be used to ascertain the deceased’s income. As stated by the court, a driver is classified as a “skilled worker” under Schedule BCategory III of the Kerala Fair Wages Act.
Upon reviewing this in conjunction with the Notification that was implemented on January 1, 2015, which revised Schedule A of the Kerala Fair Wages Act and established a minimum wage scale for the employees listed in Schedule B, it becomes evident that a “driver” in Kerala was remunerated at least Rs. 15,600/ in 2015. We are of the opinion that neither the High Court nor the Tribunal were informed about the aforementioned Act or the notification issued in accordance with it. Due to its inability to recognize the statutory mandate prescribing minimum wages for skilled laborers such as “drivers,” the High Court erred in determining the deceased’s income to be Rs.10,000/. Therefore, we are inclined to approximate the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 15,600.”
The Insurance Company also expressed concern regarding the method of calculating compensation for non-standard topics. As an explanation for this, the bench stated, “We are not inclined to accept this plea, however, due to the fact that the Insurance Company has not opted to lodge an appeal against the High Court’s judgment.” After consenting, the Insurance Company is unable to later contest the Appellants’ meager compensation awarded under the “nonconventional heads.” Nonetheless, this remains an open legal question.
