2025 INSC 15

SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 Etc. Page 1 of 15

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. of 2025

(@ SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

…Appellant(s)

Versus

Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand

…Respondent(s)

With

Civil Appeal No. of 2025

(@ SLP (C) No. 10773 of 2019)

Civil Appeal No. of 2025

(@ SLP (C) No. 33052 of 2018)

Civil Appeal No. of 2025

(@ SLP (C) No. 10759 of 2019)

Civil Appeal No. of 2025

(@ SLP (C) No. 12272 of 2019)

J U D G M E N T

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In these quintuplet appeals, two from the Insurer

and three from the Claimant who is the legal heir of the

deceased persons, the insurer claims for reduction of

SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 Etc. Page 2 of 15

quantum of compensation and the claimant seeks

enhancement of quantum of compensation granted by

the Motor Vehicles Accident Tribunal, raising various

grounds. In this judgment, the claimant is referred to as

‘the appellant’ and the insurance company which

preferred two appeals is referred to as ‘the respondent’,

for convenience.

3. The unfortunate incident in which the appellant lost

her parents and the younger brother occurred on

20.06.2007. The offending vehicle bearing No. TN-21-X-

3879/Tata van insured with the respondent driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the

stationary auto bearing No. TN-07-Y-0657 in which the

deceased persons were travelling. Seeking

compensation for the death of the father, mother and the

brother, the appellant filed MCOP No.5238/2011, MCOP

No.5239/2011 and MCOP No.5252/2011 , respectively.

On appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and

documentary, the Tribunal found the driver of the Tata

van to be negligent and ultimately saddled the

respondent with the liability to indemnify the owner of

the said offending vehicle. Hence, in view of the

concurrent findings in that regard, we proceed to

SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 Etc. Page 3 of 15

consider only on the question whether enhancement of

compensation is to be made at the instance of the

appellant or reduction of compensation is to be done at

the instance of the respondent-insurer.

4. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.14,78,000/-,

as compensation for the death of the father of the

appellant. For the death of her mother and brother, the

Tribunal granted Rs.13,33,936/- and Rs.2,45,000/-

respectively. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

quantum of compensation thus awarded, the appellant

preferred appeals. After taking into account the rival

contentions, the High Court enhanced the compensation

for the death of the father of the appellant from

Rs.14,78,000/- to Rs.30,58,000/- and for the death of her

mother, the High Court enhanced the compensation from

Rs.13,33,936/- to Rs.16,34,000/-. For the death of

brother, the appellant was granted an amount of

Rs.2,55,000/- in addition, and in other words, enhanced

the compensation from Rs.2,45,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. As

noted earlier, the appellant claims enhancement of

compensation in all the three cases and at the same time,

the respondent seeks deduction of quantum of

compensation granted in the case of the parents of the

SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 Etc. Page 4 of 15

claimant. In other words, the respondent has chosen not

to prefer any appeal against the enhanced compensation

granted for the death of the brother of the appellant.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

6. We will, firstly, consider the appeals preferred by

the respondent-insurer seeking reduction of the

enhanced quantum of compensation granted in the case

of the parents of the appellant. Needless to say, that only

if the said question of such deduction is answered in

negative, the appeals by the claimant invite

consideration. A perusal of the appeals by the

respondent would reveal that the very same three

questions of law have been raised while contending for

reduction of the enhanced compensation, as hereunder:-

“A. Whether the Hon'ble High Court of

Judicature at Madras has erred or not

deducting the 1/3 of the income of the

deceased regarding personal expenditures

where the deceased has a minor daughter

and old aged parents as the dependents?

B. Whether the Hon'ble High Court has error

in considering the income of the deceased,

where there is no proof of income

SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 Etc. Page 5 of 15

considered by the Hon'ble High Court and

considered the income on assumption basis?

C. Whether the Hon'ble High Court has error

in awarding Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent

No.1 and also Rs.20,000/- to the respondent

no. 2 & 3 towards the loss love and affection

and 30,000 /- towards the Funeral Expenses.

Whereas this Hon'ble Court had already

fixed the quantum in conventional heads at

Rs. 70,000/- in total of all, in its judgment in

National Insurance Co. Ltd, vs. Pranay Sethi

& Ors. (SLP No. 25590/2014))?”

7. It is true that a perusal of the award passed by the

Tribunal and the judgment of the High Court in the

appeals would reveal that when one-third of the income

assessed in the case of the parents was deducted

towards their personal expenses by the Tribunal while

determining the quantum of enhanced compensation,

the High Court did not deduct one-third without

assigning any specific reason therefor. In that regard,

according to us there cannot be any room for doubt with

respect to the position that while calculating the quantum

of compensation for death, deduction is bound to be

effected towards personal and living expenses, this

position was made clear by this Court in the decision in

Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &

SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 Etc. Page 6 of 15

Anr.

1

, in paragraph 30 of the said decision it was held

thus:-

“30. Though in some cases the

deduction to be made towards personal

and living expenses is calculated on the

basis of units indicated in Trilok

Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362], the

general practice is to apply

standardised deductions. Having

considered several subsequent

decisions of this Court, we are of the

view that where the deceased was

married, the deduction towards

personal and living expenses of the

deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)

where the number of dependent family

members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th)

where the number of dependent family

members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th)

where the number of dependent family

members exceeds six.”

8. The ground No. B taken in consonance with the

question of law No. B in the appeals filed by the insurer

is that the High Court had gone wrong in considering the

income of the deceased on assumption basis when there

was no proof of income. In this context, it is to be noticed

that though the Tribunal granted compensation in all the

three claim petitions, the respondent-insurer had not

1

(2009) 6 SCC 121; 2009 INSC 506

SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 Etc. Page 7 of 15

chosen to challenge the awards in appeals. In that

regard, the indisputable position revealed from the

records is that the parents of the appellant were not

salaried persons and the claim was that they were self-

employed. A perusal of the impugned judgment would

reveal the monthly income of the appellant’s father as

also the mother were fixed by the Tribunal and the same

was not challenged by the respondent in appeal. The

fact is that, the appellant had produced only the xerox

copies of the Income Tax Returns of her parents,

pertaining to the financial years 2003 to 2007 .

Indisputably, the Tribunal as also the High Court did not

take them as admissible evidence and make assessment

on their basis. At the same time without placing reliance

on the xerox copies of the Income Tax Returns, the

Tribunal fixed the monthly income of her father as

Rs.12,000/- and that of her mother as Rs.8,000/-. The

impugned judgment would reveal that the monthly

income thus fixed in the case of the parents were slightly

enhanced by the High Court and it in the case her of

father was re-fixed as Rs. 18,000/- and in case of her

mother as Rs. 9,000/-. As held by this Court in Sarla

Verma’s case (supra), in the matter of assessment of

SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 Etc. Page 8 of 15

compensation, hypothetical considerations would be

involved, but nevertheless such assessments should be

objective. As noticed hereinbefore, the accident had

occurred in the year 2007, and the father of the appellant,

who claimed to had been running a jewellery shop, was

aged only 48 years at the time of the accident. In the case

of the mother of the appellant, she was aged only 38

years at the time of the accident and she was also not a

mere housewife and claimed to had been running a

jewellery shop. The Tribunal could not be said to have

committed any mistake in not accepting the xerox copies

of the tax returns and virtually adopted guess work

relying on the attending circumstances to fix the monthly

income of the parents of the appellant for calculation

purpose. But finding that the monthly income so

assessed was slightly on the lower side and taking into

account various parameters, the High Court enhanced

the monthly income in their cases, respectively as

Rs.18,000/- and Rs. 9,000/-. Taking note of the year of

the accident and the age of the deceased parents of the

appellant, we do not think that the monthly income so re-

fixed by the High Court is without jurisdiction or highly

excessive. The said approach cannot be said to be

SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 Etc. Page 9 of 15

legally improper or incorrect warranting an

interference. Monthly income could be fixed taking into

account the tax returns only if the details of payment of

tax are appropriately brought into evidence so as to

enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income in

accordance with law.

9. In tune with the question of law No.C , the

respondent-insurer took a ground in the appeal

contending that the High Court had gone wrong in

granting amount in excess of Rs.70,000/- under the

conventional heads. In this context, the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent drew our attention to the

law laid down by this Court in the decision in National

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.

2

. Paragraph

59.8 of the said decision would reveal that this Court held

that under the conventional heads, only a total amount of

Rs.70,000/- ; the split-up being Rs. 15,000/- under the

head loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of

consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, is

grantable. It is to be noted that after having held thus,

this Court went on to hold that the amounts thus fixed

under the conventional heads should be revisited every

2

(2017) 16 SCC 680; 2017 INSC 1068

SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 Etc. Page 10 of 15

three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of

10% in a span of three years. Even while taking into

account the said position laid down by this Court in

Pranay Sethi’s case, we are of the view that the Tribunal

and the High Court cannot be found at fault with fixing

the amounts in excess of the aforesaid amounts fixed by

this Court as the award and the judgment of the High

Courts were passed prior to the pronouncement of the

judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi’s case. But at the

same time, it is to be noted that in the decision in M.A.

Murthy v. State of Karnataka and Ors.

3

, this Court held

that when in a decision this Court enunciates a principle

of law, it is applicable to all cases irrespective of the

stage of pendency thereof because it is to be assumed

that what is enunciated by this Court is, in fact, the law

from inception. We may hasten to add that we shall not

be understood to have held that pursuant to enunciation

of a principle of law, matters that attained finality shall be

reopened solely for the purpose of applying the law thus

laid. But at the same time, if the matter is pending, then,

irrespective of the stage, the principle cannot be

ignored.

3

(2003) 7 SCC 517; 2003 INSC 447

SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 Etc. Page 11 of 15

10. Now, we will consider the contention of the

respondent-insurer regarding the failure of the High

Court to deduct one-third of the income while calculating

the compensation payable by way of enhancement, in

terms of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma’s case

(supra). This is because the decision in Sarla Verma’s

case (supra) was very much in force as a precedent since

15.04.2009. In view of the same, we are of the view that

the respondents are justified in contending that the High

Court ought to have deducted one-third of the income

while calculating the compensation by way of

enhancement, in terms of Sarla Verma’s case (supra).

11. Now, we will consider the appeals preferred by the

appellant to know the merits of the contentions. It is to

be noted that at the time of death of the brother of the

appellant, he was aged only 10 years or thereabouts.

The quantum of compensation Rs.2,45,000/- granted by

the Tribunal for the death of the brother of the appellant

was enhanced by the High Court in the appeal to

Rs.5,00,000/- in terms of the decision of this Court in

Kishan Gopal and Anr. v. Lala and Others

4

, we do not

think that the appellant has made any ground for

4

(2014) 1 SCC 244; 2013 INSC 566

SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 Etc. Page 12 of 15

enhancement for the compensation granted for the death

of her brother taking into account his age at the time of

the accident any further.

12. The question, now, survives for consideration is

whether the appellant is entitled to get enhanced

compensation in respect of the accidental death of her

parents. We think that the appellant has certainly made

out grounds for enhancement of compensation granted

for her parents, on certain counts. It is a fact that while

calculating the monthly income, in respect of the father

and mother of the appellant, the Tribunal as also the High

Court did not consider the future prospects, may be

because both of them were not salaried persons. There

cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in

the case of self-employed persons too, fixation of

monthly income, taking the factor of future prospects

cannot be denied. The position is that, in the case of self-

employed persons below the age group of 40 years, 40%

of the income assessed for fixation is grantable taking

into account towards future prospects and in the case of

persons within age group of 40 to 50 years an addition of

25% is grantable on that count, in terms of the decision

in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). In the case of the father

SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 Etc. Page 13 of 15

of the appellant, the multiplier was correctly taken with

reference to his age. However, in the case of her mother,

the multiplier was not correctly taken in terms of the

decision in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) by both the

Tribunal and the High Court. The age of mother of the

appellant was taken as 38 years. The multiplier was

taken as ‘16’ by the Tribunal and as ‘13’ by the High

Court. To put it succinctly, while considering the

compensation for the death of the parents of the

appellant, additions and deductions have to be made

taking into account the aforesaid aspects which we have

held not considered in the light of the contentions of the

respondent-insurer as also the factors with reference to

the contentions made on behalf of the appellant. On

working out the entitlement of enhancement upon such

consideration, we find that the answer can only be in the

negative. In fact, if the amount thus payable is re-worked

making such additions and deductions on the aforesaid

heads it will result in lowering of the quantum of

compensation, though certainly not in a big way. At the

same time, we cannot lose sight of certain other aspects.

The appellant was aged only 14 years when she lost her

parents as also her younger brother. True that she got

SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 Etc. Page 14 of 15

paternal grandfather. But then, the plight and fate on

account of such solitude was considered by the Tribunal

and the High Court. She will have to experience the

same for long. That apart, while calculating

compensation it is to be borne in mind that Section 168

of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates grant of ‘just

compensation’. In a family of 4 members, viz., the

parents and two children including the appellant, three

of them died, leaving the appellant. After bestowing our

anxious consideration on all aspects, we are of the

considered view that after taking into account all

parameters, just compensation was assessed and

granted by the High Court as per the impugned common

judgment by way of enhancement, which cannot be said

to be excessive or exorbitant. In such circumstances, in

the name of correcting the law, we do not think it

appropriate to interfere with justice done to the

appellant by the High Court by granting enhanced

compensation. In other words, we do not think that after

re-working out, the compensation payable to the

appellant should be brought down, to some extent,

especially because the difference between what was

already granted and to be granted, if reworked, cannot

SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 Etc. Page 15 of 15

be said to be alarmingly excessive. Therefore, we are of

the considered view that in the interest of justice, the

enhanced compensation granted by the High Court as

per the impugned judgment has to b e maintained.

Resultantly, all the appeals must fail and accordingly

they are dismissed.

……………………, J.

(C.T. Ravikumar)

……………………, J.

(Sanjay Karol)

New Delhi;

January 02, 2025.