Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Anita And Others vs Arun Yadav And Others

Supreme Court7 September 2017R. Banumathi · Kurian Joseph

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where the actual income of a deceased skilled worker cannot be precisely ascertained, the court shall determine income by reference to the statutory minimum wages applicable to that category of worker, and shall then add a reasonable addition (50 per cent) for future prospects before deducting estimated personal expenses and applying the agreed multiplier to calculate loss of earning capacity. A driver is classified as a skilled worker rather than a semi-skilled worker, and statutory minimum wages prescribed for skilled workers are the proper basis for income computation in compensation awards, even where the deceased's actual income is undisputed but assessed at a lower figure.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11115 OF 2017

ANITA AND OTHERS ... APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

ARUN YADAV AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENT (S)

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.:

The only grievance of the appellants is on the computation of

income. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there was

no dispute that the deceased was a driver and yet the income that is

taken by the Tribunal as well as the High Court is Rs.4,200/-.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has

brought to our notice the notification issued by the Government of

Haryana, Labour Department, where a skilled person in Category ‘B’

has been granted minimum wages to the tune of Rs.4,360/-. A driver

is not a semi-skilled person but a skilled person. Therefore, in any

case, we are of the view that the income should have been assessed

at Rs.4,360/- per month. Adding 50 per cent for the future prospects, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

it comes to Rs.6,540/-. After deducting 1/4 th towards the personal NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2017.09.16 14:45:02 IST Reason:

expenses, what would have been saved to the estate would be

1 Rs.4,905/- per month. Taking the undisputed multiplier of 18, the

amount comes to Rs.10,59,480/-

3. The High Court has rightly awarded Rs 1,00,000/- towards loss

of consortium to the widow. The two minor daughters will be entitled

to Rs 1,00,000/- each, i.e., Rs. 2,00,000/- and the mother and father

get Rs. 50,000/- each, i.e., Rs 1,00,000/-, on account of loss of love

and affection. The transportation expenses awarded by the High

Court to the tune of Rs 10,000/- is maintained. Towards funeral

expenses, the appellant shall be entitled to Rs 25,000/-. The

appellant shall also be entitled to litigation costs to the tune of Rs

50,000/-. Thus, the appellant will get a total compensation of Rs

15,44,480/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from

the date of filing of the Claim Petition.

4. The Appeal is allowed to the above extent. Pending

applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

5. There shall be no order as to costs.

.......................J. (KURIAN JOSEPH)

.……………………J. (R. BANUMATHI) New Delhi;

SEPTEMBER 7, 2017.

2

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free