Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has asked courts to remain sensitive in dealing with claims of compensation in motor accident cases where the deceased is not in secure job and is employed in the unorganised sector.

A bench of Justices A S Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra accordingly went on to set aside a judgement of March 5, 2019, reducing the amount of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Rs 11.87 lakh to Rs 4.75 lakh to the family of a motor mechanic.

"It is unfortunate that in a case of the present nature, the High Court while assessing the evidence available on record, has sought to seek strict evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. When the wife and children of the deceased were before the court, they would not be in a position to secure all evidence when the deceased earning member was not in secure job," the bench said.

The court noted that despite the facts, a perusal of the judgement and award passed by the MACT, would indicate that an effort was made to examine the owner of the two-wheeler repair shop where the deceased was said to be working. 

"The High Court has discarded the same on the ground that no documents, to indicate that he is the owner of the shop and he had employed three persons, has been produced," it said.

The apex court emphasised that in a matter of the present nature where the compensation is sought and even in the absence of definite proof of income, the social status of the deceased is to be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in unorganised sector and the notional income in any event is required to be taken into consideration.

Appellants Kubrabibi and others submitted that the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and was working as a mechanic and was also running a jeep as transport business. They claimed that as a mechanic, he was earning Rs 5,000 per month and a further sum of Rs 3,000 per month by running the jeep for transport on hire. 

The bench said the fact that the deceased had three dependents to be cared for and had claimed that he was working as a mechanic, the amount payable to an unskilled labourer, cannot be the basis and in that circumstance when he was a skilled person, the daily income at Rs 200 per day in any event could have been taken even if the income from jeep transport business was discarded for want of documents. 

Court added that more so in a circumstance, where the MACT had referred to the evidence available on record and then arrived at its conclusion, "the re-appreciation of evidence by the High Court is without being sensitive to nature of lis before it".

Top court thus declared the consideration as made by the MACT was more plausible than the manner in which the High Court had proceeded to consider the matter.

With this view, the bench set aside the judgement passed by the High Court and restored the MACT award directing Oriental Insurance Company Ltd to pay Rs 11.87 lakh within four weeks.

Case Title: KUBRABIBI & ORS. vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS.