Chandra Kala vs ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Co. Ltd.
- Neutral2025 INSC 1220
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the deceased was an unskilled or semi-skilled worker without documentary proof of earnings, the court may adopt the minimum wage applicable to a comparable skilled worker at the time of the accident, adjusted for incremental increases over the years since an earlier comparable precedent, rather than the lower wage found by the tribunal based on accepted daily wage rates. Each claimant who is a dependent of the deceased — including the spouse and each child — is entitled to compensation for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per person, regardless of whether the dependents are adult or minor. In computing compensation for loss of future income in a fatal accident case, the court applies a multiplier based on the age of the deceased as established in precedent (here, 14 for a 43-year-old), adds 25% for future prospects, and deducts one-quarter for personal expenses, yielding a net multiplicand of 75% of the notional monthly income.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2025 INSC 1220 Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos. _____ of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.5687-88 of 2020)
Smt. Chandra Kala & Ors. …Appellants Versus
ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company Limited & Ors. …Respondents
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The appeal is against the quantum of award. The award
of the Tribunal was challenged in first appeal by both the
claimants and the Insurance Company.
3. The appellants contended that the deceased was a
Mason and was earning an income of Rs. 400 per day. The
Tribunal found that there was no documentary proof and
adopted the income of Rs. 189 per day, which the High Court
confirmed was the accepted daily wage at the time when the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2025.10.11 15:10:23 IST
accident occurred.
Reason:
Page 1 of 4
CA @ SLP (C) Nos.5687-88 of 2020
4. Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited1 held that a Coolie
would be entitled to a minimum wage of Rs. 4,500/- in a month;
with reference to an accident that occurred in 2004.
Considering an incremental increase of Rs.500/- for every
year, in 2014, when the accident in the present case occurred
even a Coolie would have been entitled to Rs. 9,500/- per
month. There can be no documentary proof offered for the
income of a Mason, who is also a skilled worker. In any event,
it would be safe to adopt a monthly income of Rs. 9,500/- The
High Court, considering the decision in Pranay Sethi2,
adopted a multiplier of 14 for the 43-year-old deceased, and
also made an addition of 25% for future prospects and
deducted 1/4th for personal expenses, which computation is
perfectly in order.
5. As compensation for loss of consortium, the High Court
has awarded an amount of Rs. 40,000/-. In fact, it was held that
loss of parental and filial consortium is payable to wife and
1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680
Page 2 of 4 CA @ SLP (C) Nos.5687-88 of 2020 children at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- each in New India
Assurance Company v. Somwati and Ors.3 In the present
case, the wife and three minor children of the deceased were
before Court claiming compensation for the death of the only
breadwinner of their family. All the claimants are entitled to
Rs. 40,000/- each for loss of consortium. In addition, on the
conventional heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses,
amount of Rs. 15,000/- each is awarded.
Sr. No. Particulars Amounts
1. Compensation for loss of future income Rs. 14,96,250/-
(Rs.9,500 x 12 x 14 x 125% x ¾)
2. Loss of consortium Rs. 1,60,000/-
(Rs.40,000 x 4)
3. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
4. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.16,86,250/-
3 (2020) 9 SCC 644
Page 3 of 4 CA @ SLP (C) Nos.5687-88 of 2020
6. The awarded amounts shall be paid, after deducting that
already paid, with interest @ 6% per annum as directed by the
Tribunal from the date of application till the date of payment.
7. The appeals stand allowed with the above-said
modifications.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…….…………..………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
…….…………..………………. J.
(N.V. ANJARIA) NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 26, 2025.
Page 4 of 4 CA @ SLP (C) Nos.5687-88 of 2020
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free