The Supreme Court granted over Rs 37 lakh as compensation in a road accident case while fixing the monthly income of the victim as Rs 10,000 based on the oral evidence of his wife.

The appeal before the Apex Court was directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court on the ground that the victim’s salary ought to have been taken as Rs 10,000 per month.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra affirmed, “Similarly, in the absence of any material to discard the oral evidence of PW1 Wife, we deem it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the Claimant-Appellant as Rs.10,000.”

AOR Shankar Divate represented the Petitioner while AOR Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The driver of the offending goods vehicle, while driving rashly and negligently, dashed into the Claimant-Appellant, aged 27 years, who was travelling on his motorcycle. Upon collision, the Claimant-Appellant sustained injuries and was taken to a Hospital. He remained admitted for two months completely bedridden. The Claimant-Appellant filed an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs 30 lakh with cost and interest on the ground that he was working as a Goundy and earning more than Rs.10,000 per month before the accident.

It was claimed that he was the sole breadwinner of his family and after the incident, due to mental and physical suffering, he was not in a position to do any work. The Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.6,78,000 along with interest. The Tribunal considered the monthly income of the Claimant-Appellant to be Rs.7,500 per month and the permanent disability to be 20%. In Appeal, the High Court enhanced the amount with an additional sum of Rs.18,90,938. The percentage of disability suffered was also enhanced to 100%. Dissatisfied, the Claimant-Appellant approached the Apex Court with the contention that his salary ought to have been taken as Rs.10,000 per month.

Reasoning

The Bench disagreed with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the Appellant.

“This Court in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav had placed reliance on the statement of the deceased’s wife therein to establish the income of the person”, the Bench observed. Finding no material which would discard the oral evidence of PW1 Wife, the Bench fixed the monthly income of the Claimant-Appellant as Rs.10,000.

Thus, enhancing the compensation to Rs.37,51,000, the Bench allowed the Civil Appeal.

Cause Title: Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi v. Abdul Munaf & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 191)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Shankar Divate

Respondent: AOR Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, Advocates Rajeev Kumar Panday, P Srinivasan

Click here to read/download Judgment


Supreme CourtJustice Sanjay KarolJustice Prashant Kumar MishraMotor Accident Claim

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.