2026 INSC 661 C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024 Page 1 of 13

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 27220 of 2024)

RASHMIREKHA TRIPATHY

AND ANR. … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE BRANCH MANAGER (LEGAL CLAIMS),

SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave granted.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024 Page 2 of 13

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated

25.04.2024 passed in MACA No. 452 of 2023 by the High Court of

Orissa at Cuttack, which, in turn was preferred against the order

dated 24.02.2023 in MAC Case No. 92/2019 by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal

1

, Behrampur

2

.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on

29.05.2018, the deceased, namely Mr. Manoranjan Pandey, aged 39

years, was travelling from Behrampur to Bhubaneswar in his vehicle

bearing registration number OD-02H-7929. Near Kaliabali Chakka

on the National Highway, the offending vehicle, a truck bearing

registration number AP-05TD-2112, being driven in a rash and

negligent manner, struck the vehicle of the deceased. As a result of

the said accident, he suffered injuries and passed away during

treatment.

4. In connection with the same, an FIR came to be registered at

Chamakhandi Police Station, bearing number Case No. 55/2018,

under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

1

Hereinafter ‘MACT’.

2

Hereinafter ‘the Tribunal’.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024 Page 3 of 13

5. An application seeking compensation was filed by the

claimant-appellants, being the legal representatives of the deceased,

before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,

1988, to the tune of Rs.2,25,00,000/-. It was stated therein that the

deceased was running his own construction business and earning Rs.

15,00,000/- per annum. He was the sole breadwinner of his family.

6. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 24

th

February, 2023, held

Respondent No.2, Insurance Company, liable to pay a compensation

of Rs. 2,27,00,064/- along with 6% interest per annum, to the

claimant-appellants from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e.,

from 7

th

May 2019. The income of the deceased was ascertained as

Rs. 15,00,000/- per annum considering his Income Tax Return

3

for

the Assessment Year

4

2018-19. A deduction of 1/3rd was made

considering 3 dependents and a multiplier of ‘16’ was applied,

considering the age of the deceased. The Tribunal further awarded

compensation towards conventional heads, in accordance with law.

7. Aggrieved thereof, Respondent No. 2 the Insurance Company

filed an appeal before the High Court seeking reduction in

compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It was submitted therein that

3

Hereinafter ‘ITR’.

4

Hereinafter ‘AY’.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024 Page 4 of 13

the Tribunal erred in computing the income of the deceased and

applied the wrong multiplier, as the age of the deceased was 39 as

per his PAN card.

8. The High Court, vide, the impugned judgment, allowed the

appeal and reduced the compensation awarded by an amount of Rs.

39,24,914/- to Rs. 1,87,75,150/- along with 6% interest per annum.

The Court reduced his annual income as Rs. 13,33,226/-. For this

purpose, the Court took the average of the previous two ITRs which

were on record, instead of only the previous ITR, which was taken

into consideration by the Tribunal. Furthermore, the Court applied

a multiplier of 15.

9. Dissatisfied, the claimant-appellants are now before us. The

significant ground of challenge taken is that the Courts below, have

erred in assessing the income of the deceased.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

11. The issue which arises before this Court is whether for

assessing the annual income of a deceased person or claimant under

the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the ITRs for the previous year is

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024 Page 5 of 13

appropriate or average of the past two/three years is to be taken into

consideration?

12. In view of the importance of the issue involved, vide order

dated 07.02.2025, this Court appointed Mr. J.R. Midha, learned

senior counsel and Mr. Salil Paul, learned counsel as amicus curiae,

both experts in this field, to assist in this matter.

13. Mr. J.R. Midha, learned senior counsel, has submitted that

there is no uniformity in the principles relating to the computation

of annual income on the basis of ITRs. Some Courts take the average

of the last three years, whereas some Courts take the last return filed

to assess the income of the deceased. He further submitted that while

the ITR is the prima facie evidence of the deceased’s income, it does

not always reflect the true income of the deceased. Factors such as

business income pattern, growth pattern and nature of business

5

also

warrant consideration. Moreover, in cases where the ITR has been

filed after the death, it would be appropriate to call for the ITRs for

the past three years along with balance sheets of the concerned

person/entity.

5

Nature of business would also include businesses and professions where negative income in

the initial years is common and does not reflect the true financial standing of the individual.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024 Page 6 of 13

14. Mr. Salil Paul, learned amicus curiae has submitted that this

Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay

Kumar Mohanty and Anr.

6

relied upon the average income of the

ITRs for the previous three years to compute the income of the

claimant therein.

15. At the outset, we must reiterate that it is settled law that the

objective behind the claim process in the Motor Vehicles Act 1988

is to grant ‘just and fair compensation’. Recently, a two-judge

Bench of this Court in V. Pathmavathi and Ors. v. Bharthi Axa

General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

7

had succinctly summarised

this position and observed:

“12. We ought to remind ourselves, at the outset, that

when an individual dies as a result of a fatal road

accident and his distressed dependents apply for

compensation either from the owner of the vehicle

responsible for the death or the insurance company

with whom such vehicle is insured, no amount of

money can truly compensate for the loss.

Compensation is nothing but a rough estimate, being a

token attempt to ease the financial burden on the

dependents. Take consortium, for example. It is

impossible to put a price on the loss of a loved one's

companionship. Spousal, filial or parental

compensation are all about acknowledging the

emotional void but the payout can never be more than

6

(2018) 3 SCC 686.

7

2026 SCC OnLine SC 158.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024 Page 7 of 13

a rough approximation. It is like trying to measure the

immeasurable. Considering the income of the

deceased, the needs of his dependents and the

emotional toll of the loss, the best that can be ensured

is that the compensation is fair and reasonable, without

being either arbitrary or niggardly. This would be in

accord with the foundational principle governing the

determination of “just compensation” under Section

168 of the Act.

13. In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2013) 9 SCC

65], a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that the

purpose of award of compensation under section 166

read with section 168 of the Act is to place the

distressed dependents of the victim of a fatal road

accident, if the victim had been the sole bread earner,

in almost the same position financially if he lived his

natural span of life. It is obviously not intended to put

such distressed dependents in a better financial position

in which they would otherwise have been if the

accident had not occurred. At the same time, the

determination of compensation is not an exact science

and the exercise involves an assessment based on

estimation and conjectures, here and there, as many

imponderable factors and unpredictable contingences

have to be taken into consideration. Obviously, award

of damages in each case would depend on the particular

facts and circumstances of the case but the element of

fairness in the amount of compensation so determined

is the ultimate guiding factor.”

(emphasis supplied)

16. Similarly, another two-judge Bench of this Court in Anant v.

Pratap and Anr.

8

, had expounded that ‘the purpose of compensation

8

(2018) 9 SCC 450.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024 Page 8 of 13

under the Motor Vehicles Act is to fully and adequately restore the

aggrieved to the position prior to the accident.’

17. In the considered view of this Court, there can be no hard and

fast formula for computing the annual income of a deceased

person/claimant. ITRs being a statutory document are an important

reference point when it comes to assessing one’s income, for the

purposes of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act.

18. We find force in the submission put forth by Mr. J.R Midha,

learned senior counsel. There must be a bifurcation made between

salaried individuals and self-employed individuals when it comes to

assessment of annual income. In our view, for salaried individuals,

only the ITR of the previous year will be sufficient for showcasing

the annual income from salary. The reason for considering only the

preceding year is that the financial impact of promotions is

significant and may be reflected in the ITR for only that year. A

situation may also arise whereby the deceased/claimant might not

have completed a year in the promoted position before the accident

or might not have filed ITR for such period. In such cases the Court

concerned shall take reference to the promotion letter and other

corroboratory financial statements.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024 Page 9 of 13

19. When it comes to self-employed / individuals carrying out

their own business, in our view, the average of the income specified

in the ITRs of up to the previous three years is to be taken as a

reference point for assessment of annual income from their business.

There may also be a scenario where only one or two ITRs have been

filed. Given such scenarios and the fluctuation of income in these

professions, surrounding circumstances are also to be taken into

consideration. These would include:

a) The nature of the business (including geographic location,

category etc.);

b) Growth pattern of the business and impact of death on the

business;

c) Potential growth of business (for instance certain

businesses are capital intensive at the outset and are

profitable at scale/in the future);

d) Negative income (certain businesses may require losses in

the initial years, which may not reflect the true financial

standing); and

e) Any other relevant factor relating to the business.

20. The date when the ITRs are filed would also become a

relevant consideration, as there may be scenarios where inflated

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024 Page 10 of 13

income is showcased after death/injury. In these circumstances, the

surrounding factors of the business would become more relevant.

However, if sufficiently supported by financial statements, such

ITRs may also be taken into consideration.

21. Coming to the facts at hand, the claimant-appellants have

brought on record two ITRs for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19,

whereby the annual income of the deceased is Rs. 11,59,882/- and

Rs.15,06,571/- respectively.

22. The High Court took the average of these two years to assess

the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 13,33,226/-. There was no

reference made to other factors relating to the nature of business. It

is borne from the record that the deceased was running his own

construction business. Therefore, with a view to awarding just and

fair compensation, we fix his annual income as Rs. 14,00,000/-. In

view thereof, the compensation payable to the claimant-appellants

would be as follows:

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024 Page 11 of 13

CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION

Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with:

Yearly Income Rs.14,00,000/-

Future Prospects (40%)

(Age being 39)

14,00,000/- + 5,60,000/-

= Rs.19,60,000/-

National Insurance

Co. Ltd. v. Pranay

Sethi

(2017) 16 SCC 680

Para 37, 39, 41, 42

and 59.4

Deduction (1/3) 19,60,000 – 6,53,333

= Rs.13,06,667/-

Multiplier (15) 13,06,667 x 13

= Rs.83,82,582/-

Loss of Income of the

Deceased

Rs.1,96,00,005

Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-

(10% increase)

National Insurance

Co. Ltd. v. Pranay

Sethi

(2017) 16 SCC 680

Para 59.8 Loss of Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-

(10% increase)

Loss of Consortium 48,400 X 3

(10% increase)

National Insurance

Co. Ltd. v. Pranay

Sethi

(2017) 16 SCC 680

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024 Page 12 of 13

= Rs. 1,45,200/-

Para 59.8

United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Satinder Kaur,

(2021) 11 SCC 780

Para 37.12

Rajwati alias Rajjo

and Ors v. United

India Insurance

Company Ltd. and

Ors.

2022 SCC Online SC

1699

Para 34

Total

Rs.1,97,81,505

Thus, the difference in compensation would be as under:

MACT High Court This Court

Rs.2,27,00,064/- Rs.1,87,75,150/- Rs.1,97,81,505/-

23. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The

impugned award dated 24.02.2023 passed in M.A.C. Case No. 92 of

2019 by MACT, Behrampur, as modified by the High Court of

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024 Page 13 of 13

Orissa at Cuttack vide the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 in

MACA No. 452 of 2023, stands modified accordingly. Interest on

the enhanced amount is to be paid, as awarded by the Tribunal.

24. The amount be directly remitted into the bank account of the

claimant-appellants. The particulars of the bank account are to be

immediately supplied by the learned counsel for the appellants to

the learned counsel for the respondents. The amount be remitted

positively within a period of four weeks thereafter.

25. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………… ………………………… …J.

(SANJAY KAROL)

………..………… ………………………. …..J.

(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH )

New Delhi

July 1, 2026

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 3088 of 2025 Page 1 of 7

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3088 of 2025)

RAJANI & ORS. … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MUKESH & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order

dated 24.09.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1832 of

2022 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, which, in

turn was preferred against the order dated 19.01.2022 in Claim

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 3088 of 2025 Page 2 of 7

Case No. 92/2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

1

,

Manawar

2

.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on

08.01.2017, the deceased namely Sushil, then aged 49 years, was

proceeding along with two others from Indore towards Manawar,

in a vehicle bearing registration number MP 11 CC 2555, when

the offending vehicle, a dumper bearing registration number MP

09 HG 9690 being driven by Respondent No. 1, dashed into the

vehicle of the deceased from the opposite side in a rash and

negligent manner. Consequently, the deceased lost his life on the

spot due to serious injuries suffered on his head, chest and other

parts of the body.

4. An application seeking compensation

3

was filed before

MACT, Manawar, Dhar, Madhya Pradesh under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant-appellants, being

his legal representatives, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.

2,41,00,000/-, stating therein that deceased was conducting

business as an Insurance Agent and was the sole breadwinner of

the family. It was stated therein that he used to earn Rs.

1,50,000/- per month.

1

Hereinafter ‘MACT’.

2

Hereinafter ‘the Tribunal’.

3

Claim Case No. 141/17.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 3088 of 2025 Page 3 of 7

5. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 49,77,000/-, vide

award dated 19.01.2022, along with interest at the rate of 9% per

annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Tribunal

assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 40,000/- per month.

6. Being aggrieved thereof, the claimant-appellants filed an

appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore,

seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by

the Tribunal.

7. The High Court vide the impugned order dated 24.09.2024

in Misc. Appeal No. 1832 of 2022 enhanced the total

compensation payable by Rs. 26,32,500/-, to a total amount of

Rs. 76,09,500/-. The monthly income of the deceased was

enhanced to Rs. 62,500/-.

8. Yet dissatisfied, the claimant-appellants are now before us.

The significant point of challenge is that the compensation

awarded is inadequate, warranting interference in accordance

with law.

9. Keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court in

Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 3088 of 2025 Page 4 of 7

(Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited

and Ors

4

, we proceed to examine the issue at hand.

10. In the considered view of this Court, the High Court erred

by taking the average income of the last four ITRs. Given that the

deceased was working as an Insurance Agent, it is completely

plausible that there was a hike in his income in a certain financial

year, dependent on performance. The same would not become a

reason to take an additional ITR into consideration for the

purposes of computation of his annual income.

11. Upon a perusal of the ITRs on record, the income of the

deceased for the AY 2015-16 stood at Rs. 4,03,180/-. For AY

2016-17, it stood at Rs. 9,59,665/- and for the previous AY 2017-

18, it stood at Rs.7,00,559/-. Therefore, taking into consideration

the average of these previous three years and the nature of

profession of the deceased, his annual income is assessed as

Rs.6,87,802/-.

12. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation now payable to

the appellants would be recalculated as under:

4

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 3088 of 2025 Page 5 of 7

CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION

Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with:

Yearly Income Rs.6,87,802/-

Future Prospects (25%) (Age

being 49)

6,87,802 + 1,71,950

= Rs.8,59,752/-

National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

(2017) 16 SCC 680

Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and

59.4

Deduction (1/4) 8,59,752 – 2,14,938

= Rs.6,44,824/-

Multiplier (13) 6,44,824 X 13

= Rs.83,82,582/-

Loss of Income of the Deceased

Rs.83,82,582/-

Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-

(10% increase)

National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

(2017) 16 SCC 680

Para 59.8

Loss of Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-

(10% increase)

Loss of Consortium 48,400 X 6

(10% increase)

= Rs. 2,90,400/-

National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

(2017) 16 SCC 680

Para 59.8

United India Insurance

Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur,

(2021) 11 SCC 780

Para 37.12

Rajwati alias Rajjo and

Ors v. United India

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 3088 of 2025 Page 6 of 7

Insurance Company Ltd.

and Ors.

2022 SCC Online SC

1699

Para 34

Total

Rs.87,09,282

Thus, the difference in compensation is as under:

MACT High Court This Court

Rs.49,77,000/- Rs. 76,09,500/- Rs.87,09,282/-

13. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The

impugned award dated 19.01.2022 passed in Claim Case No.

141/17 by the MACT, Manawar as modified by the High Court

of Madhya Pradesh at Indore vide the impugned order dated

24.09.2024 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1832 of 2022, stands

modified accordingly. Interest on the enhanced amount is to be

paid, as awarded by the Tribunal.

14. The amount be directly remitted into the bank account of

the claimant-appellants. The particulars of the bank account are

to be immediately supplied by the learned counsel for the

appellants to the learned counsel for the respondents. The amount

be remitted positively within a period of four weeks thereafter.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 3088 of 2025 Page 7 of 7

15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………… ………………………… …J.

(SANJAY KAROL)

………..………… ………………………. …..J.

(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH )

New Delhi

July 1, 2026

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 7735 of 2025 Page 1 of 7

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7735 of 2025)

SMT. REKHA & ORS. … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

DINESH PORWAL & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order

dated 30.07.2024 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 1932 of 2018 by

the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, which, in turn was

preferred against the order dated 20.12.2017 passed in MACT

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 7735 of 2025 Page 2 of 7

Case No. 155/2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

1

,

Mandsaur

2

.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on

15.06.2015, the deceased namely Krishnavallabh, then aged 28

years, was travelling from Sakhtali to Barkheda, on his

motorcycle. On the main road, near Miriyakhedi nai abadi, the

offending vehicle bearing registration number MP 43 C 8969,

struck the motorcycle at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent

manner. As a result of the injuries suffered, the deceased passed

away during treatment.

4. In connection thereof, an FIR came to be registered

3

under

Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver being

Respondent No. 1 herein.

5. An application was filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT, Mandsaur, Madhya

Pradesh, on behalf of the claimant-appellants being the legal

representatives of the deceased. A compensation amount of Rs.

90,25,000/- was claimed. It was stated therein that the deceased

was running his own grocery business and had an annual income

1

Hereinafter ‘MACT’.

2

Hereinafter ‘the Tribunal’.

3

Crime No. 255/2015.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 7735 of 2025 Page 3 of 7

of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Furthermore, he was the sole breadwinner of

the family.

6. The Tribunal vide its award dated 20.12.2017 in MACT

No. 155/2017 awarded an amount of Rs. 15,36,560/- to the

claimant-appellants along with 7% interest from the date of filing

of the claim petition. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income

of the deceased as Rs. 7,000/- on the basis of the net profit from

the ITR of the previous year. The Tribunal further awarded

compensation towards conventional heads, in accordance with

law.

7. Aggrieved thereof, the claimant-appellants preferred an

appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The

significant ground of challenge taken was that the Tribunal erred

in assessing the monthly income of the deceased, by not

considering the average of the previous ITRs filed by him.

8. The High Court vide the impugned judgment dated

30.07.2024 in Misc. Appeal No. 1932 of 2018, allowed the

appeal and enhanced the compensation payable by an amount of

Rs. 23,04,920/- to a total compensation of Rs. 38,40,850/-. The

High Court assessed his monthly income as Rs. 16,750/- per

month, on the basis of the average income in his ITRs for AY

2012-13 and AY 2013-14. Two ITRs which were filed after the

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 7735 of 2025 Page 4 of 7

death of the deceased, were excluded for the purposes of this

assessment.

9. Still dissatisfied, the claimant-appellants are now before

us. The point of challenge raised is that the High Court has

erroneously excluded the two recent ITRs for the purposes of

computation of income.

10. Keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court in

Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager

(Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited

and Ors

4

, we proceed to examine the issue at hand.

11. It cannot be disputed that this is a case where the claimant-

appellants have filed ITRs for the AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 after

the death of the deceased. The annual income has been shown as

Rs. 2,35,881/- and Rs. 4,98,671/-, respectively. Whether these

figures have been unduly enhanced have to be seen from

surrounding financial statements, which this Court does not have

the benefit of. At this stage, it also not in the interest of justice

for the matter to be remanded.

12. It is a matter of record that the deceased was running his

own wholesale grocery store. Considering the ITRs available on

4

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024.

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 7735 of 2025 Page 5 of 7

record and the nature of his profession, we deem it appropriate to

fix the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 3,25,000/-.

13. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation now payable to

the appellants would be recalculated as under:

CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION

Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with:

Yearly Income Rs.3,25,000/-

Future Prospects (40%) (Age

being 28)

3,25,000 + 1,30,000

= Rs.4,55,000/-

National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

(2017) 16 SCC 680

Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and

59.4

Deduction (1/4) 4,55,000 – 1,13,750

= Rs.3,41,250/-

Multiplier (17) 3,41,250 x 17

= Rs.58,01,250/-

Loss of Income of the

Deceased

Rs.58,01,250/-

Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-

(10% increase)

National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

(2017) 16 SCC 680

Para 59.8

Loss of Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-

(10% increase)

Loss of Consortium 48,400 X 5

National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 7735 of 2025 Page 6 of 7

(10% increase)

= Rs.2,42,000/-

(2017) 16 SCC 680

Para 59.8

United India Insurance

Co. Ltd. v. Satinder

Kaur,

(2021) 11 SCC 780

Para 37.12

Rajwati alias Rajjo and

Ors v. United India

Insurance Company

Ltd. and Ors.

2022 SCC Online SC

1699

Para 34

Total

Rs.60,79,550

Thus, the difference in compensation is as under:

MACT High Court This Court

Rs.15,36,560/- Rs. 38,40,850/- Rs.60,79,550/-

14. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The

impugned award dated 20.12.2017 passed in MACT Case No.

155/2017 by the MACT, Mandsaur as modified by the High

Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore vide the impugned order

dated 30.07.2024 in Misc. Appeal No. 1932 of 2018, stands

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 7735 of 2025 Page 7 of 7

modified accordingly. Interest on the enhanced amount is to be

paid, as awarded by the Tribunal.

15. The amount be directly remitted into the bank account of

the claimant-appellants. The particulars of the bank account are

to be immediately supplied by the learned counsel for the

appellant to the learned counsel for the respondent. The amount

be remitted positively within a period of four weeks thereafter.

16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………… ………………………… …J.

(SANJAY KAROL)

………..………… ………………………. …..J.

(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH )

New Delhi

July 1, 2026