M/S National Insurance Company Ltd vs Neeru Devi
- Neutral2025 INSC 1430
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
1. Where a deceased claimant in a motor accident case claims income substantially exceeding the taxable threshold under the Income Tax Act, the absence of income tax returns is a material evidentiary gap that must be considered in assessing the credibility of the income claim, particularly where the claim rests on oral testimony alone without documentary corroboration. 2. The computation of income by reference to EMI payments on a loan for business assets (such as trucks) cannot support an assumption that the deceased's income was double the EMI amount in the absence of other evidence establishing actual income from the business operations; such multiplication of EMI is a mere surmise and conjecture. 3. Where a deceased person owned income-generating business assets (such as commercial trucks), the death of the owner would not ordinarily result in cessation of income from those assets, as the business could continue to generate income through engagement of other drivers or operators; therefore, loss of dependency must be assessed on the basis that the business assets would continue to produce income, not on the assumption that all income ceases. 4. In computing compensation for loss of dependency in a motor accident case, the court must apply the principle established in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi that legal representatives cannot expect a windfall from tragedy, nor receive merely nominal compensation, and must fix the award at a figure that reflects neither an excessive computation nor an inadequate one. 5. In addition to compensation for loss of dependency, the dependents of a deceased are entitled to separate awards for loss of consortium (if a spouse), loss of filial consortium (if children), loss of estate, and funeral expenses, with all such amounts carrying interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2025 INSC 1430 Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.19462 of 2025) M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus
Neeru Devi & Ors. ...Respondents JUDGMENT
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The Insurance Company has in the above case raised
only the question of the exorbitant award made on an
unconscionable computation of the income of the deceased.
The undisputed facts are that the deceased, whose legal
representatives were the claimants, wife and three children,
died in a motor accident on 29.08.2017. The deceased was
driving a vehicle which was hit by another vehicle driven by
Signature Not Verified the fifth respondent at a very high speed and in a rash and Digitally signed by VARSHA MENDIRATTA
negligent manner. The Tribunal framed two issues; Date: 2025.12.15 15:01:27 IST Reason:
whether, the death was caused by the fatal injuries caused
Page 1 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No.19462 of 2025 in the road traffic accident and the quantum of compensation
entitled to the legal representatives. On the issue of death
caused in the road traffic accident, there is no dispute raised
and the dispute is only on the computation of monthly
income.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company would point out that the
computation of Rs.95,000/- (Rupees Ninety-five Thousand
only) as monthly income of the claimant is without any basis.
A person who had an income of Rs.95,000/- (Rupees Ninety-
five Thousand only) per month would definitely be liable to
pay income tax. There were no income tax returns
produced by the claimants. The contention raised based on
the loan account produced was that the deceased was
paying EMI to the extent of almost Rs.42,500/- (Rupees
Forty-two Thousand Five Hundred only) per month, for the
two trucks he owned, in which event his income would have
been double the EMI paid. There is no basis for such an
assumption, and the computation of annual income is on
mere surmises and conjectures, argues the learned Counsel
Page 2 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No.19462 of 2025 for the insurer. It is also submitted that a perusal of the
accounts produced by the claimants itself would indicate
that there were 15 defaults committed by the deceased
which would clearly indicate that he was not getting a
regular income to even pay up the EMIs in time.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants,
however, would point out that the accounts show a different
picture and evidence due satisfaction of EMIs. In any event,
if there was continuous default, the bank would have
proceeded against the defaulter. It is argued that there was
just compensation awarded by the Tribunal as confirmed by
the High Court especially looking at the reasoning in
Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.1.
5. Looking at Gurpreet Kaur, we are not convinced that
the reasoning on the facts therein has any application to the
present case. Therein, the deceased was stated to be
working as a contractor for lifting of earth, for which
purpose, he had also purchased a tractor. The tractor was
purchased on a loan, which had an EMI of Rs.11,550/-
1 2022 SCC Online SC 1778
Page 3 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No.19462 of 2025 (Rupees Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Fifty only) and
which loan was paid up within a year also. It is on that basis
that the computation of monthly income at Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) was determined by the
Tribunal and accepted by this Court, setting aside the order
of the High Court determining the income on the basis of the
minimum wages at the relevant time.
6. In the present case, the claim petition itself spoke of
the deceased having been a reputed transporter and the
owner of two trucks. This was reiterated by the wife of the
deceased who was examined as PW1 who also stated that
the deceased had also been driving the truck of others for
additional income. The said contention was not at all
established by way of any evidence and pertinently as
noticed by the Tribunal itself, no income tax returns were
filed, which assumes much relevance insofar as the claim of
income exceeding the taxable limit as per the Income Tax
Act.
7. In Gurpreet Kaur (supra), the contention was that the
deceased was an earth-moving contractor for which
Page 4 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No.19462 of 2025 purpose he was using the tractor, which he had purchased
availing a loan, which also stood cleared by due deposit of
EMIs. The deceased was a 24-year-old whose death would
have deprived the family of the earnings from his avocation
of a contractor. However, in the present case, the deceased
was admittedly a reputed transport contractor and there
would be no difficulty in continuing the business after his
death. The deposition of PW 1 that the trucks were parked
idly cannot at all be accepted. In the very circumstance of
the deceased having owned two trucks, he would have been
engaging a driver to run at least one of them. The death of
the victim in our opinion would not have put a stop to the
income that could be generated from his business;
especially from the two trucks he owned.
8. As has been noticed by the Tribunal at the very
commencement of the award, the Constitution Bench in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi2 categorically
found that the legal representatives of the deceased in a
motor vehicle accident cannot expect a windfall from a
2 (2017) 16 SCC 680
Page 5 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No.19462 of 2025 tragedy, nor can the amounts granted be a mere pittance,
an apology for compensation. Keeping the said principle in
mind, we are of the opinion that the amount of Rs.50,00,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) now deposited, on directions
issued by this Court would suffice as compensation for loss
of dependency, which works out to half of the total loss of
dependency as computed by the Tribunal. However,
interest at the rate of 9% per annum would definitely be
entitled to the claimants, which the Insurance Company
would be liable to pay.
9. Additionally, the claimants would be entitled to
compensation for loss of consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses as awarded. Further, as has been held in
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors.3
not only the wife, the children are also entitled to loss of filial
consortium. The claimants would be entitled to a total of
Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand only) over
and above the amount deposited. The additional amounts
with the interest due shall also be deposited/paid by the
3 (2018) 18 SCC 130
Page 6 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No.19462 of 2025 Insurance Company. The total award amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim
petition. The balance amount shall be paid by the Insurance
Company to the claimants within a period of one month from
the receipt of this Judgment.
10. The appeal shall stand allowed.
11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……...…….……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
...………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI DECEMBER 15, 2025.
Page 7 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No.19462 of 2025
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