Notifications Under Minimum Wages Act Can Be Considered In Absence of Evidence To Evaluate Monthly Income: SC Enhances Motor Accident Compensation
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as well as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore.
The Supreme Court granted over Rs 20 lakh to a victim labourer as motor accident compensation and reiterated that notifications under the Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor when there is no evidence available to evaluate monthly income.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which in turn was preferred against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra asserted, “On the aspect of his functional disability, this Court recognises that due to the amputation of his right hand, his ability to work as a labourer would be significantly hampered. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to increase the percentage of functional disability to 80%.”
AOR Praveen Swarup represented the Appellant.
Factual Background
The incident dates back to the year 2016 when the Claimant-Appellant, aged 25 years, was extracting soybean from the thresher machine installed in the tractor of Respondent No.1. The driver of the tractor reversed the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the Claimant-Appellant’s hand went into the thresher machine and, thus, he suffered serious injuries on his hand, shoulder, head, near the ear and other parts of the body. Subsequently, his hand was amputated below the elbow.
In connection with this incident, an FIR was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle – Respondent No.2 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 287 of the Indian Penal Code. The Claimant-Appellant filed an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lakh and he submitted that he was working as a labourer, earning Rs.9,000 per month at the time of the accident.
The Tribunal held that the insurance company was liable to pay an amount of Rs 3,76,090 along with interest considering 20% permanent disability suffered by the Appellant and took the Appellant’s income as Rs. 60,000 per annum on the basis of notional income. In appeal, the High Court enhanced the amount awarded to the Claimant-Appellant to Rs.6,61,690 and also increased the percentage of disability suffered to 40%. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
Showing its disagreement with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the Appellant and the functional disability suffered by him, the Bench said, “ At the outset, we must refer to the exposition of this Court in Gurpreet Kaur and Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors., wherein it was stated the notifications under the Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor in cases where there is no evidence available to evaluate monthly income.”
The Bench was of the view that the minimum wage prevalent in the area for unskilled workers was Rs.6850. In light of the fact that the appellant’s ability to work as a labourer was significantly hampered due to the amputation of his right hand, the Bench increased the percentage of functional disability to 80%.
Allowing the Civil Appeal, the Bench enhanced the compensation to Rs.20,55,452 and modified the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Cause Title: Jitendra v. Sadiya & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 166)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Praveen Swarup, Advocates N. K. Mody, Ishita M. Puranik, Prabuddha Singh Gaur, Jigish Agarwal, Karan
