How Courts Fix Income of Daily Wage Workers: Supreme Court Explains While Enhancing Accident Compensation

The Supreme Court has said that in professions such as masonry, where there is no guarantee of regular work or documented payments, courts and Motor Accident Claims Tribunals must exercise caution while determining a claimant’s income.

Court emphasised that a judicious balance must be maintained so that while the income assessed should be fair to the claimant, it must also have a reasonable basis and should not be excessive in nature.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed a civil appeal filed by Rajendra Chakrawarti against a March 12, 2024 judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur. The high court had, in turn, decided an appeal against a September 2, 2021 order passed by the Ninth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni.

On June 25, 2015, a motorcycle (the offending vehicle), owned and driven by one Dinesh Kumar Yadav, recklessly dashed into the vehicle of claimant-appellant Rajendra Chakrawarti from the front. The claimant-appellant, aged 35 years, who was working as a mason, sustained various injuries, including a fracture in the fibula bone and injuries in the ligament membrane of his knee.

Seeking compensation of about Rs 13 lakh, the claimant stated that he was earning Rs 15,000 per month as a mason at the time of the accident.

The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs 1,68,654 along with interest at 6% per annum. It assessed the claimant’s monthly income on a notional basis at Rs 5,939 and determined his whole-body disability at 3%.

The claimant challenged this assessment before the high court, arguing that his monthly income had been undervalued and that the compensation awarded was on the lower side.

By its impugned order, the high court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation by Rs 92,109, taking the total amount to Rs 2,60,763 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Considering the nature of the claimant’s occupation and the injuries suffered, the high court reassessed his functional disability at 6% and fixed his monthly income at Rs 6,200.

Still dissatisfied, the claimant approached the Supreme Court, contending that his income had been wrongly assessed, the rate of interest awarded was inadequate, and insufficient compensation had been granted under conventional heads.

While examining the matter, the bench observed that there was no documentary proof to support the claimant’s claim that he was earning Rs 15,000 per month.

“In the absence of any such proof, we find no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the high court, which has correctly assessed the claimant-appellant’s income at Rs 6,200 per month,” the bench said.

On the issue of disability, court noted that masonry is a physically demanding occupation. In this background, the 10% disability assessed by the doctor in relation to the injured leg was found to be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Court, therefore, reassessed the disability at 10%. It also enhanced the compensation for pain and suffering to Rs 80,000, as against Rs 40,000 awarded by the high court.

Modifying the high court’s order, the Supreme Court finally fixed the total compensation at Rs 3,67,419 with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, excluding a delay period of 194 days in filing the appeal. Court directed that the amount be paid within four weeks.

Case Title: Rajendra Chakrawarti Vs Dinesh Kumar Yadav & Anr

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma