2025 INSC 1093
Page 1 of 7
SLP (C) No. 1733 of 2021
Non-reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11425 OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1733 of 2021)
Smt. Manjula & Ors.
…Appellants
Versus
The Branch Manager
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Bijapur & Anr.
…Respondents
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Four friends from Bijapur were on a pilgrimage to
Shirdi when the car in which they were travelling, driven
by one of them, was hit by a goods’ lorry driven rashly
and negligently coming from the opposite direction on
the NH-13 Bijapur-Horti Road. All the persons travelling
in the car died on the spot. Four claim petitions were filed
Page 2 of 7
SLP (C) No. 1733 of 2021
before the Tribunal and four appeals were filed seeking
enhancement of compensation, to which appeals cross
objections were filed by the Insurance Company. The
appellate order which is impugned in the present appeal
by the claimants in one of the claim petitions seek
enhancement of income and a better award than that
granted by the Tribunal, since the High Court reduced
the quantum of income without any reason.
2. There is absolutely no dispute with respect to the
negligence being mulcted on the driver of the lorry,
which is also covered by a valid insurance policy. The
challenge is only to the quantum and though in the
judgment of the Tribunal from which the present appeal
arises, the deceased-husband of the first claimant was
found to have a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-, without any
reasoning and without reliance to any material, the High
Court reduced it to Rs.5,500/-. The total amount was
enhanced, since addition was made to the future
Page 3 of 7
SLP (C) No. 1733 of 2021
prospects in tune with the Constitution Bench judgment
in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1
.
3. The dispute is raised on the income determined
which according to the learned Counsel for the
appellants; vehemently asserted before us, was
Rs.2,25,000/-. The deceased was a multifaceted
personality having several irons in the fire; proprietor of
a medical shop, partnership in a pharmaceutical
distributorship and Director of a Cooperative Bank. The
learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company,
however, pointed out that none of these tall claims were
substantiated.
4. As we noticed, the High Court has not referred to
any material in fixing the monthly income. The trial court
on the other hand, in the subject claim petition has
referred to the various documents produced by the
claimants. It has been proved that the deceased had a
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Page 4 of 7
SLP (C) No. 1733 of 2021
diploma in Pharmacy. The claim of running a medical
shop was not proved since his licence was cancelled on
11.02.2008 while the accident took place on 25.07.2010.
The distributorship run through a partnership was
proved, but not the income since the various documents
produced were found by the Tribunal to be not
authenticated; nor were the alleged partners examined.
The claim of Directorship in a Cooperative Bank and
monthly sitting fees obtained, was also not fully
substantiated. It was in this situation that the Tribunal
adopted a monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- which the High
Court reduced, without any basis, to Rs.5,500/-.
5. We cannot but notice that this Court has in
Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd.2 found that in the year 2004 even a
Coolie would be earning an amount of Rs.4,500/- in a
month. If incremental increase is made of Rs.500/- per
2
(2011) 13 SCC 236
Page 5 of 7
SLP (C) No. 1733 of 2021
year, it can be safely assumed that a Coolie in the year
2010, when the subject accident occurred, would have
obtained an income of Rs.7,500/-. The deceased herein
has been proved to have a diploma in Pharmacy though
the exact remuneration is not substantiated. He is found
to be in a partnership of pharmaceutical distributorship
and associated with a Cooperative Bank. The deceased
was also running a medical shop, though prior to the date
of the accident the licence stood cancelled. Considering
the overall circumstances, it can be safely assumed that
the deceased would have obtained a monthly
remuneration of Rs.12,000/- to look after the family of five
comprising of himself, his wife, minor daughter and two
parents.
6. The multiplier applied of 14 and the 25% future
prospects adopted by the High Court, in the
circumstance of the deceased having been 43 years old
and not in a regular employment is perfectly in order
Page 6 of 7
SLP (C) No. 1733 of 2021
with the decision in Pranay Sethi1
. The 1/4th deduction
made also is correct since his family consisted of 4
dependants. The loss of estate and funeral expenses has
to be at Rs.15,000/- each as per the Constitution Bench
decision. Insofar as the loss of consortium not only the
wife as per New India Assurance Company v. Somwati
and Ors.3 the children and the parents also are entitled
at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. The award hence shall be
as per the tabulated list below:-
S. No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of income @ Rs.12,000/- p.a.
(12,000 x 12 x ¾ x 14 x 125%)
Rs.18,90,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
3. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium @ Rs.40,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- x 4)
Rs. 1,60,000/-
Total Rs.20,80,000/-
3
(2020) 9 SCC 644
Page 7 of 7
SLP (C) No. 1733 of 2021
7. The award amount shall be paid after deducting
what is already paid with interest @ 6% from the date of
application as determined and apportioned by the
Tribunal within a period of 3 months from today.
8. The appeal stands allowed with the above
directions.
9. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed
of.
……….…………………….….. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
……….…………………….….. J.
(N.V. ANJARIA)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 9, 2025.
