Shivaleela vs The Divisional Manager

2025 INSC 357 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.12193-12194 OF 2024]

SHIVALEELA AND OTHERS … APPELLANTS A1: SHIVALEELA A2: KUMARI KAVYA A3: KUMARI PURNIMA A4: KUMARI SHRAVYA A5: MASTER VEERESH A6: K. H. M. SHIVAMURTHAIAH VERSUS THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

R1: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. R2: SRI. GIRISH B. R3: DR. BASAVARAJA

JUDGMENT

Signature Not Verified AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Digitally signed by SAPNA BISHT Date: 2025.03.18 17:00:33 IST Reason:

Leave granted.

2

2. The present appeals are directed against the common Final

Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2023 in MFAs No.6192/2014 (MV-D)

and No.2087/2014 (MV-D) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned

Order’) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) challenging the award

dated 10.01.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accidents

Claim Tribunal IX at Harapanahalli (hereinafter referred to as the

‘MACT’) in MVC No.73 of 2012, whereby the High Court dismissed the

appeal filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation

awarded by the MACT, and partly allowed the appeal filed by the first

respondent-Insurance Company.

FACTS IN BRIEF:

3. Mr. K.H.M. Virupakshaiah, the husband of the appellant no.1,

son of appellant no.6 and father of appellants no.2 to 5 met with an

accident on 05.05.2012, unfortunately resulting in his death. On

05.05.2012 at 12:15 PM, the deceased was riding his Bajaj motorcycle

along with a pillion rider near Itagi Village on the Harihar-Hospete road.

When they reached near Talakallu Village cross, they were hit by a

Ford car bearing Registration No.KA36M1979, which was driven by

respondent no.2 and, as claimed, in a rash and negligent manner with 3

high speed. The Ford car hit the motorcycle of the deceased on the

right side leading to his death. Crime No.24/2012 was registered

initially under Sections 2791, 3372 and 3383 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and upon the deceased

dying, Section 304-A4 of the IPC was also added. On 07.09.2012, the

appellants filed MVC No.73 of 2012 against the respondents, seeking

compensation of an amount of Rs.77,15,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Seven

Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand). The MACT, by Judgment and Order

dated 10.01.2014, awarded a compensation of Rs.25,49,000/- (Rupees

Twenty-Five Lakhs Forty-Nine Thousand) with 6% interest per annum

from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

4. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred Miscellaneous First Appeal

No.6192 of 2014 (MV-D) before the High Court. The respondent-

Insurance Company also filed Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2087 of

1 ‘279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.—Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.’ 2 ‘337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.—Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.’ 3 ‘338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.—Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.’ 4 ‘304-A. Causing death by negligence.—Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.’ 4

2014 (MV-D). The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the

appellants’/claimants’ appeal and partly allowed the appeal of the

respondent-Insurance Company. The High Court reduced the

compensation of Rs.25,49,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs Forty-

Nine Thousand) to Rs.20,61,320/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Sixty-One

Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty).

SUBMISSION BY THE APPELLANTS:

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased

was aged about 32 years and had an old father, mother, wife, three

minor daughters and one minor son at the time of the accident and an

income of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) per month.

6. It was submitted that the family of the deceased owned 9 Acres

23 Cents of irrigated land on which various varieties of crops and fruits

like Banana, Chiku, Anjeer, Cotton etc., with the guidance of officers of

the concerned Agricultural Department, was being cultivated from

which a yearly income of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) was raised

and the saving was Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) per year. 5 It

was further submitted that the deceased was also doing milk-vending 6

5 Deposition of PW1 6 Deposition of PW3.

5

and earned Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) per month therefrom.

Further, it was submitted that the family owned a tractor-trailer and the

deceased was earning a sum of Rs.9,000 (Rupees Nine Thousand) per

month on account of hiring/driving of the tractor-trailer. 7

7. It was submitted that the sudden death of the deceased left the

dependants without proper support as he was the main force behind

the family’s agriculture, milk-vending and hiring/driving businesses. It

was pointed out that the wife has to take care of the minor children and

the father is old. It was submitted that though it has come on record

that there was another brother of the deceased, but that could have

lessened the earning of the petitioner by only one-third. It was

submitted that initially the MACT has taken the notional income as

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month without looking into the

documents which were produced by the Bank Manager/PW5 who

admitted to advancing a loan of Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs

Twenty Thousand) for agriculture purpose and the deposition of the

wholesale vendor/PW6 who used to buy the banana crops grown on

the field of the deceased along with a list of sales exhibited in the

proceedings showing that they varied from Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees

Three Lakhs) a year to almost more than Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five 7 Deposition of PW4.

6

Lakhs) in a period of only three months. Thus, it was submitted that the

monthly income would be Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand), which

had been drastically reduced by the MACT to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

Thousand) without giving any reason(s) to justify the same.

8. It was submitted that the High Court had further caused

injustice by reducing the monthly income to Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight

Thousand), without taking into consideration the relevant factors which

were required to be taken note of. Learned counsel prayed for this

Court’s intervention and for justice to be served.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

9. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company

submitted that the deceased was one of the two sons of the loan-

holder and thus the income had to be divided among the three, as such

Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) per month was a reasonable and

correct assessment of the deceased’s earning by the High Court. It

was further submitted that the MACT considered the evidence and the

High Court has also taken note of it. Learned counsel urged that the

High Court has been more practical in assessing the income, which 7

cannot be faulted. Hence, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the

appeals.

ANALYSIS, REASONING & CONCLUSION:

10. Having given our anxious thought, this Court finds that both the

MACT as also the High Court had not correctly approached the issue.

When evidence was there before the MACT with regard to loan being

advanced of Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Thousand) and

that of PW6, who purchased the banana crops from the deceased,

stating that the latest transaction amounted to more than Rs.5,00,000/-

(Rupees Five Lakhs) within a few months, which could not be

controverted by the respondent-Insurance Company, coupled with the

fact that there was a tractor in the name of the family and also

evidence of PW3 to the effect that the deceased used to supply milk,

which is also reflected in the passbook of the Milk Producer’s Co-

operative Society showing payments being made to the mother of the

deceased of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) per month, the MACT

and the High Court erred in assessing the income on the lower side.

11. Bearing in mind the evidences adduced by the depositions of

PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 in totality, it is clear that the deceased had 8

a major role in the businesses referred to supra. Going by the

cumulative income on all three sources, it is difficult to accept that the

income of the deceased was restricted to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

Thousand) per month as decided by the MACT, much less Rs.8,000/-

(Rupees Eight Thousand) per month as decided by the High Court. The

fact that the father and the mother of the deceased were also claimants

before the MACT and the mother having passed away during the

interregnum itself shows that they were advanced in age and thus, the

deceased, but obviously, would be presumed to have carried out the

major responsibility as is done in such joint family, especially since the

businesses of agriculturist, hiring/driving and milk-vending are of a

physical and strenuous nature, which cannot be seriously undertaken

ordinarily for long periods of time by elder persons.

12. Upon a conspectus of the material on record especially apropos

the deceased’s income, with the MACT, it is clear that the fixation of

monthly income ultimately as Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) per

month by the High Court cannot be justified in any manner. At the same

time, even the claim of the appellants of the income being Rs.40,000/-

(Rupees Forty Thousand) per month is also not borne out. 9

13. Thus, on an overall circumspection of the entire facts and

circumstances of the cases and material on record, we opine that it

may be reasonably assumed that the deceased was having a monthly

income of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) per month. The

compensation awarded by the High Court under the other heads, being

in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the decisions in

Smt. Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121

and National Insurance Company Ltd. v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16

SCC 680, does not require any interference. In K Ramya v National

Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, after taking note of,

inter alia, Ningamma v United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13

SCC 710, the Court held that the ‘… Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a

beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation

as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is

essentially forward-looking. Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly

concerned with making up for the past and reinstating a claimant to his

original position, the compensation under the Act is concerned with

providing stability and continuity in peoples’ lives in the future. …’ The

present coram has respectfully restated the said observations in S

Vishnu Ganga v Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 182.

10

14. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is modified to the extent that

the monthly income of the deceased would be taken as Rs.15,000/-

(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) per month instead of Rs.8,000/-(Rupees

Eight Thousand) per month. Further, the rate of interest shall be 7.5%

per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation,

instead of 6% per annum. Thus, the compensation will be as follows:

S. No. Head of Compensation Compensation awarded

1. Income Rs.15,000

2. 40% addition towards future Rs.15,000 + Rs.6,000 = prospects Rs.21,000

3. 1/5th deduction towards personal and Rs.21,000 - Rs.4,200 = living expenses Rs.16,800 4. Multiplier 16

5. Compensation for loss of dependency Rs.16,800 x 12 x 16 = Rs.32,25,600

6. Conventional Heads Rs.33,000

i) Funeral expenses

ii) Loss of estate

7. Loss of Consortium Rs.3,08,000

8. Total Compensation Rs.35,66,600

15. Accordingly, the appeals stand partly allowed in the aforesaid

terms.

16. Parties to bear their own costs.

11

17. I.A. No.65015/2024 seeking permission to file additional

documents is allowed; permission as prayed for is granted. I.A.

No.65016/2024 [Exemption from filing Official Translation] is dismissed

as infructuous.

………………..........................J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

…………………..................…..J. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH] NEW DELHI MARCH 17, 2025