Amarveer Kaur vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. ________ OF 2025 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 22192-93 OF 2018)

AMARVEER KAUR AND ORS. …APPELLANTS VERSUS RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS With CIVIL APPEAL NOS. ________ OF 2025 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.8172-73 OF 2019)

JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded an

amount of ₹ 23,15,000/-, for the death of the husband of the

first claimant, who left behind him, five dependents: his wife,

two minor children, and both his parents. The liability was

cast on the Insurance Company who had insured the vehicle, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

rejecting their contention that the driver of the vehicle, the 1st Nirmala Negi Date: 2025.04.29 18:05:58 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 8

CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018 respondent in the claim petition did not have an effective

license and the license produced was fake.

3. The Insurance Company filed an appeal against the

liability cast on them and claimants sought enhancement of

compensation, in two different appeals, in which cross

objections were filed by the registered owner of the

offending vehicle. The High Court disposing of the appeals

and the cross objections reduced the compensation for loss

of income to ₹7,92,540/- and awarded amounts for loss of

consortium to the widow @ ₹40,000/-, funeral expenses and

loss of estate respectively @ ₹15,000/- each as has been held

by a Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance

Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1.

4. We heard Mr. Anamay Mishra and Mr. C.B. Gururaj,

learned counsels for the claimant who pointed out that there

was clear evidence through the employer that the deceased

was getting a monthly salary of ₹15,000/- which was accepted

by the Tribunal; reduced to ₹3,700/- by the High Court. It was

also argued that since there were six members of the family,

for personal expenses, only 1/5th of the compensation for loss

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

Page 2 of 8 CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018 of income ought to have been deducted as personal

expenses. It is also argued that loss of consortium to parents

and children also are to be awarded as has been found in

Pranay Sethi1.

5. Ms. Prerna Mehta, learned counsel for the Insurance

Company argued that the compensation awarded by the

High Court was just compensation. The appeal of the insurer

was filed insofar as the liability cast on the Insurance

Company. It was clearly established by examining an

employee of the motor vehicle department that the license

was fake. Even if the Insurance Company is directed to pay

the amounts awarded, they should be given the right to

recover the award amounts with interest from the owner of

the vehicle.

6. The owner of the vehicle argued against the liability

cast on him by the Tribunal and the High Court placing

reliance on the decision of this Court in IFFCO Tokio

General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta Devi2. Even if a fake

license is produced by the driver, if it is a seemingly valid

driving license, unless such license is demonstrably fake on

2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1398

Page 3 of 8 CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018 the face of it, no employer would make enquiries as to its

genuineness and in such circumstance when clear breach by

the insured is not proved, the insurer has the liability, held

this Court, in the cited decision.

7. In the quantum appeal, we must notice the contention

raised on the income determined and the loss of consortium,

as was applicable to the children and the parents. Before the

Tribunal, the claimants had raised a contention that the

deceased was employed in a rice mill as an accountant, and

he was paid ₹15,000/- per month. One Jagdish Rai was

examined as PW3 who asserted that he was the proprietor of

the rice mill, but in his cross examination he specifically

stated that he did not maintain any books of accounts in the

mill and though he was paying provident fund for all his

employees, there was no such payment made with respect to

the deceased. The educational qualification of the deceased

to enable him to work as an accountant was also not proved.

The High Court hence rightly rejected the evidence of PW3.

The High Court then proceeded to compute the income at

₹3,700/- as applicable to an unskilled worker looking at the

minimum wages fixed by the State of Punjab for such

Page 4 of 8 CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018 workers. It is not clear as to from which document or

notification such income was taken by the Tribunal.

8. As far as the income for an unskilled labourer is

concerned, this Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.3 fixed the notional

income of a coolie at ₹4,500/-per month in the year 2004. In

Pranay Sethi1 the Constitution Bench recognized the

principle that there would be incremental enhancement in

the case of even self-employed individuals in the

unorganized sector and also proposed an increase in the

income of such persons, as future prospects. Applying the

said logic, we are of the opinion that even if the deceased

was working in an unspecified job like a coolie considering

the increase of cost of living and economic advancements

over the years, it can be safely assumed that even a coolie

would be eligible for incremental enhancement of wages of

least ₹500/- per month in every subsequent year. In the

present case the accident occurred in the year 2010, 6 years

from 2004 in which year this court had fixed ₹4,500/- as

income per month for a coolie. Hence it can be safely

3 (2011) 13 SCC 236

Page 5 of 8 CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018 presumed that a coolie in the year 2010 would have earned

an income of ₹7,500/-.

9. The deceased though was asserted to be 23 years of

age in the claim petition, the postmortem report showed his

age as 30 years and hence the multiplier taken at 17 is

perfectly in order. The deduction for personal expenses

should be 1/4 since, along with the deceased, the family

comprised of six members. The loss of dependency hence

comes to ₹ 7,500 x 12 x 17 x 140% x 3/4 = ₹ 16,06,500/-. The

self-employed person also must be deemed to have had the

future prospects at the rate of 40%, as held in Pranay Sethi1.

10. As far as loss of consortium it has been held in New

India Assurance Company v. Somwati4 apart from spousal

consortium, filial and parental consortium loss also must be

compensated, thus entitling children and parents of the

deceased.

11. Hence, ₹ 40,000/- each is payable to the children as also

to the parents, hence an amount of ₹ 1,60,000/- will have to

be added bringing it to ₹ 2,00,000/- for all the five members.

The compensation payable will be ₹ 18,06,500/-, to which

4 (2020) 9 SCC 644

Page 6 of 8 CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018 shall be added compensation for loss of estate and funeral

expenses @ ₹ 15000/- each taking the total award to

₹18,36,500/-.

12. Insofar as the appeal of the owner is concerned, we

need not investigate whether the petitioner has a valid

license. Admittedly, the driving license produced indicates

that so far as the non-transport vehicle is concerned, the

license is valid from the date of issuance 04.09.2006 to

03.09.2026 as is seen from the driving license produced

alongwith the counter affidavit of the insurer. However

insofar as the transport vehicle is concerned, the validity is

shown as between 23.06.2014 to 29.06.2017. Obviously

transport vehicle licenses are issued only for three years, and

it needs to be renewed every three years. The offending

vehicle provided by the petitioner admittedly was a goods

vehicle, being a Eicher/Canter vehicle. We need not hence

go into the question of whether the license was fake or not

since it was not established that as on the date of accident,

there was a valid license for driving a transport vehicle, as

held by the driver. We hence find no reason to interfere with

the order of the Tribunal and the High Court, wherein the

Page 7 of 8 CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018 liability to pay the compensation though cast on the

Insurance Company, they were given the authority to recover

the same from the owner of the vehicle.

13. The appeals are allowed with the above modification.

14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

….……….……………………. J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 29, 2025.

Page 8 of 8 CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018