Malakappa vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

2025 INSC 590 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. ______ OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.27391 of 2018)

SRI MALAKAPPA & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. RESPONDENTS

JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants who were the claimants before the Tribunal

sought compensation for the death of the wife of the first appellant

whose children are second and third appellants. The claim arose

from the death of a pillion rider in an accident which occurred on

22.02.2015, as a result of which the pillion rider succumbed to the

injuries sustained in the accident; two days later i.e. on

Signature Not Verified 24.02.2015.

Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi Date: 2025.04.29 18:05:59 IST Reason: Page 1 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.27391 OF 2018

3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants asserted an income of

₹15,000/- for the deceased, while she was alive, claiming her to

be a Coolie. The Tribunal considering the unspecified work in

which the deceased was employed, took the income at ₹7,000 and

reduced 1/3rd of the income determined for personal expenses;

finding the husband to be not dependent on the deceased, in

which event the dependant family consisted of the deceased and

her two children. Fifty percent was added for future prospects

and considering the age of the deceased, i.e. 35 years, a

multiplier of 16 was applied, determining the total loss at

₹13,44,000/-. On other heads also compensation was awarded

totalling ₹18,81,966/- as shown hereinbelow:

Nos. Particulars Amount in ₹

1 Loss of dependency 13,44,000/-

2 Loss of consortium 50,000/-

3 Medical expenses 21,966/-

4 Transport and funeral expenses 30,000/-

5 Loss of estate 3,36,000/-

6 Love and affection 1,00,000/-

Total 18,81,966/-

Page 2 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.27391 OF 2018

4. The insurance company filed appeal before the High Court

against the award also alleging that the accident was not due to

the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle, based on the

eye-witness testimony and also the charge-sheet registered

against the driver. The High Court found the accident to have

been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver

of the bike, whose owner is indemnified by the insurance

company. We find no reason to differ from the said findings.

5. The next issue considered was as to whether the petitioner

No.1 is a dependent. The husband of the deceased was not a

dependent though he was a legal heir especially since he was an

abled bodied person of 40 years, was the finding.

6. As far as the income of deceased though ₹15,000/- was

claimed, the income determined by the Tribunal was ₹7,000. The

High Court enhanced the income to ₹8,000/-; though there was

no appeal by the claimants.

7. The deduction applicable for personal expenses was fixed

at 1/3rd, considering the dependent family as one comprised of

the deceased and only two children. However, we are of the

opinion that since there was no employment specified of the

husband, it cannot be assumed that he would not have been at

Page 3 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.27391 OF 2018 least partially dependent on the income of the deceased. Hence

the family has to be comprised of 4 in which circumstances the

deduction for personal expenses shall be at 1/4th.

8. As far as the additions are concerned, the Tribunal

accepted 50% as future prospects, which the High Court deleted.

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1, a Constitution

Bench, insofar as a self-employed person below the age of 40

years, declared an addition for future prospects, which was

limited to 40%. The appropriate multiplier to be applied was

taken as 16 since the deceased was aged 35 years. The future

prospects of 50% as awarded by the Tribunal was deleted which

is proper, but this has to be granted at the rate of 40%. For loss of

estate and funeral expenses, ₹15,000/- was granted while for loss

of consortium a sum of ₹40,000/- was granted. In New India

Assurance Company vs. Somwati2 held that loss of consortium is

not restricted to the wife alone but has to be awarded to the

children and parents.

9. Since there was no appeal filed from the order of the

Tribunal determining the income at ₹7,000/-, we find no reason

to increase the income but however, the claimant would be

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 2020 (9) SCC 644 Page 4 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.27391 OF 2018 entitled to 40% for future prospects and the deduction for

personal expenses will be 1/4th. The medical expenses as

accepted by the Tribunal based on bills has to be granted. In

addition to spousal loss of consortium children too are entitled at

the rate of ₹40,000/-. In the above circumstances, we award the

following compensation under the following heads:

Nos. Particulars Amount in ₹

1 Loss of dependency 16,12,800/-

8000x12x140%x16x1/4

2 Loss of consortium 1,20,000/-

3 Medical expenses 21,966/-

4 Transport and funeral expenses 15,000/-

5 Loss of estate 15,000/-

Total 17,84,766/-

10. There is no scope for loss of love and affection, since

already loss of consortium has been awarded. We are conscious

of the fact that incremental increases have been made from the

award of the Tribunal though the appellant had not challenged

the Tribunal’s order. We are of the opinion that what has been

enhanced is only the pro-rata amounts under the conventional

Page 5 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.27391 OF 2018 heads, while the percentage adopted for future prospects and the

deduction for personal expenses have been reduced. We do this

exercise on the trite principle that what is to be awarded is ‘just

compensation’ as has been held by the Constitution Bench. The

award as modified by us also does not exceed that granted by the

Tribunal. We dispose of the appeal with the above modifications.

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

………….……………………. J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 29, 2025.

Page 6 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.27391 OF 2018