Manjula vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11425 OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1733 of 2021)

Smt. Manjula & Ors. …Appellants Versus The Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Bijapur & Anr. …Respondents

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Four friends from Bijapur were on a pilgrimage to

Shirdi when the car in which they were travelling, driven

by one of them, was hit by a goods’ lorry driven rashly

and negligently coming from the opposite direction on

the NH-13 Bijapur-Horti Road. All the persons travelling Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VARSHA MENDIRATTA Date: 2025.09.09 in the car died on the spot. Four claim petitions were filed 17:50:20 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 7 SLP (C) No. 1733 of 2021

before the Tribunal and four appeals were filed seeking

enhancement of compensation, to which appeals cross

objections were filed by the Insurance Company. The

appellate order which is impugned in the present appeal

by the claimants in one of the claim petitions seek

enhancement of income and a better award than that

granted by the Tribunal, since the High Court reduced

the quantum of income without any reason.

2. There is absolutely no dispute with respect to the

negligence being mulcted on the driver of the lorry,

which is also covered by a valid insurance policy. The

challenge is only to the quantum and though in the

judgment of the Tribunal from which the present appeal

arises, the deceased-husband of the first claimant was

found to have a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-, without any

reasoning and without reliance to any material, the High

Court reduced it to Rs.5,500/-. The total amount was

enhanced, since addition was made to the future

Page 2 of 7 SLP (C) No. 1733 of 2021 prospects in tune with the Constitution Bench judgment

in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1.

3. The dispute is raised on the income determined

which according to the learned Counsel for the

appellants; vehemently asserted before us, was

Rs.2,25,000/-. The deceased was a multifaceted

personality having several irons in the fire; proprietor of

a medical shop, partnership in a pharmaceutical

distributorship and Director of a Cooperative Bank. The

learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company,

however, pointed out that none of these tall claims were

substantiated.

4. As we noticed, the High Court has not referred to

any material in fixing the monthly income. The trial court

on the other hand, in the subject claim petition has

referred to the various documents produced by the

claimants. It has been proved that the deceased had a

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

Page 3 of 7 SLP (C) No. 1733 of 2021 diploma in Pharmacy. The claim of running a medical

shop was not proved since his licence was cancelled on

11.02.2008 while the accident took place on 25.07.2010.

The distributorship run through a partnership was

proved, but not the income since the various documents

produced were found by the Tribunal to be not

authenticated; nor were the alleged partners examined.

The claim of Directorship in a Cooperative Bank and

monthly sitting fees obtained, was also not fully

substantiated. It was in this situation that the Tribunal

adopted a monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- which the High

Court reduced, without any basis, to Rs.5,500/-.

5. We cannot but notice that this Court has in

Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Co. Ltd.2 found that in the year 2004 even a

Coolie would be earning an amount of Rs.4,500/- in a

month. If incremental increase is made of Rs.500/- per

2 (2011) 13 SCC 236

Page 4 of 7 SLP (C) No. 1733 of 2021 year, it can be safely assumed that a Coolie in the year

2010, when the subject accident occurred, would have

obtained an income of Rs.7,500/-. The deceased herein

has been proved to have a diploma in Pharmacy though

the exact remuneration is not substantiated. He is found

to be in a partnership of pharmaceutical distributorship

and associated with a Cooperative Bank. The deceased

was also running a medical shop, though prior to the date

of the accident the licence stood cancelled. Considering

the overall circumstances, it can be safely assumed that

the deceased would have obtained a monthly

remuneration of Rs.12,000/- to look after the family of five

comprising of himself, his wife, minor daughter and two

parents.

6. The multiplier applied of 14 and the 25% future

prospects adopted by the High Court, in the

circumstance of the deceased having been 43 years old

and not in a regular employment is perfectly in order

Page 5 of 7 SLP (C) No. 1733 of 2021 with the decision in Pranay Sethi1. The 1/4th deduction

made also is correct since his family consisted of 4

dependants. The loss of estate and funeral expenses has

to be at Rs.15,000/- each as per the Constitution Bench

decision. Insofar as the loss of consortium not only the

wife as per New India Assurance Company v. Somwati

and Ors.3 the children and the parents also are entitled

at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. The award hence shall be

as per the tabulated list below:-

S. No. Particulars Amount

1. Loss of income @ Rs.12,000/- p.a. Rs.18,90,000/-

(12,000 x 12 x ¾ x 14 x 125%)

2. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-

3. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-

4. Loss of consortium @ Rs.40,000/- Rs. 1,60,000/-

(Rs.40,000/- x 4) Total Rs.20,80,000/-

3 (2020) 9 SCC 644

Page 6 of 7 SLP (C) No. 1733 of 2021

7. The award amount shall be paid after deducting

what is already paid with interest @ 6% from the date of

application as determined and apportioned by the

Tribunal within a period of 3 months from today.

8. The appeal stands allowed with the above

directions.

9. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed

of.

……….…………………….….. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

……….…………………….….. J.

(N.V. ANJARIA)

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 9, 2025.

Page 7 of 7 SLP (C) No. 1733 of 2021