Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Hansa Devi vs SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Supreme Court15 May 2025Sudhanshu Dhulia

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

1. In assessing the income of a deceased driver in a motor accident compensation claim, the court will accept the income claimed by the claimants before the Tribunal where it is reasonable in relation to established benchmarks; specifically, where a coolie earned Rs. 4,500/- in 2004, an incremental increase of Rs. 500/- per year would justify an unskilled labourer or driver earning approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month in 2014, and the High Court cannot arbitrarily reduce this to statutory minimum wages without justification. 2. Children and parents of a deceased, in addition to the surviving spouse, are entitled to claim and receive compensation for loss of consortium in motor accident claims under the applicable law. 3. Where claimants do not appeal against the Tribunal's award of compensation and the insurance company's appeal results in an unjustified reduction by the High Court, the Supreme Court will restore the Tribunal's award without enhancement, as there is no basis for the claimants to seek more than what they originally claimed. 4. Compensation awarded by a Tribunal in a motor accident claim shall be disbursed with interest within the stipulated period, and where minor children are beneficiaries, their share shall be deposited in a fixed deposit with interest disbursed to the mother as guardian until the children attain majority.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

2025 INSC 706 Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. _______ OF 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.10822 of 2021]

HANSA DEVI & ORS. APPELLANT (S) VERSUS

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants are the legal representatives

of the deceased in a motor accident; the widow,

three minor children and parents. The deceased

was the driver of a truck in which a

helper/cleaner was accompanying him. The Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by driver had alighted after parking the truck and Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.05.15 18:38:31 IST

when he was boarding the truck, another truck Reason:

Page 1 of 5 SLP (C) No.10822 of 2021

driven rashly and negligently hit him and he

died on the spot. The helper/cleaner who was

PW2 before the Tribunal, admitted him to the

hospital and gave a First Information Statement

leading to the registration of an FIR. The

claimants were before the Tribunal seeking

compensation for the death of the bread winner

of the family who was 28 years old when he

met with the accident and succumbed. The

Tribunal awarded a total amount of

Rs.23,07,000/- to the dependents adopting the

salary claimed of Rs.10,000/- and reducing 1/3rd

for personal expenses while taking 3/4 th of 40%

of the income of the deceased as future

prospects. The wife was granted loss of

consortium @ Rs.40,000/-, the children @

Rs.25,000/- each and the parents @ Rs.10,000/-

each. The funeral expenses and loss of estate

was also awarded @ Rs.15,000/- each.

Page 2 of 5 SLP (C) No.10822 of 2021

3. The Insurance Company filed an appeal

before the High Court in which there was

considerable deduction made especially on the

salary, which was reduced to Rs.4,076/-

adopting the minimum wages for a driver @

Rs.5,434/- with 40% future prospects. The

claimants were granted only Rs.40,000/-

towards loss of consortium. The amount

awarded was reduced to Rs.12,34,105/-.

4. We find no reason to accede to the reduction

of income as done by the High Court. The

accident occurred on 08.05.2014. In

Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd1 this Court held

that even a coolie would get an income of

Rs.4,500/-in the year 2004. Hence, an unskilled

labourer considering the marginal and

incremental increase in each successive year @

Rs.500/- per year would be entitled to get

1 (2011) 13 SCC 236

Page 3 of 5 SLP (C) No.10822 of 2021 almost Rs.10,000/- in the year 2014. Hence, the

claim made before the Tribunal with respect to

the driver of heavy vehicle getting Rs.10,000/-

as wages per month must be necessarily

accepted. Insofar as the loss of consortium, it

has been held in New India Assurance

Company v. Somwati and Ors.2 that even

the children and the parents are entitled to

compensation for loss of consortium.

5. Since no appeal is filed by the claimants

from the award of the Tribunal, we do not think

there is any enhancement required. Still the

award made as compensation for loss of

consortium to the children and the parents by

the Tribunal has to be retained. On the above

reasoning, we set aside the order of the High

Court restoring the order of the Tribunal. The

amounts, with interest, as awarded by the

Tribunal shall be disbursed to the claimants

2 (2020) 9 SCC 644

Page 4 of 5 SLP (C) No.10822 of 2021 within a period of two months, which shall be

equally apportioned in the name of the wife,

children and parents. If any of the minor

children have not attained majority, the amount

shall be kept in a fixed deposit, the interest of

which can be disbursed to the mother who is

the guardian. The insurance company shall

deposit the amounts within the period

stipulated before the Tribunal and the Tribunal

shall apportion the amounts as directed

hereinabove.

6. The appeal is allowed.

7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

...……….……………………. J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 15, 2025.

Page 5 of 5 SLP (C) No.10822 of 2021

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