The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of the motor accident claimants and granted an enhanced compensation of over Rs 20 lakh. The Apex Court took note of the fact that the deceased was a multifaceted personality.

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the claimants of a 43-year-old man who died in a motor accident.

The Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria stated, “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.”

“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”, it further noted.

Advocate Preetam Shah represented the Appellant while AOR Arvind Gupta represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

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 in the car died on the spot. Four claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal, and four appeals were filed seeking enhancement of compensation, to which cross objections were filed by the Insurance Company.

The claimants challenged the appellate order passed in one of the claim petitions seeking enhancement of income and a better award than that granted by the Tribunal, since the High Court reduced the quantum of income.

Arguments

The dispute was raised on the income determined, which according to the appellants, was Rs 2,25,000.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that there was no dispute with respect to the negligence being mulcted on the driver of the lorry, which was also covered by a valid insurance policy. Coming to the aspect of income, the Bench found that the High Court had not referred to any material in fixing the monthly income. The trial court, in the subject claim petition, had referred to the various documents produced by the claimants.

The Bench noticed that it had been proved that the deceased had a diploma in Pharmacy. The claim of running a medical shop was not proved as his licence was cancelled in 2008, while the accident took place in 2010. The distributorship running 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 the monthly sitting fees obtained were also not fully substantiated. It was in such circumstances that the Tribunal adopted a monthly income of Rs. 6,000, which the High Court reduced, without any basis, to Rs 5,500.

The Bench referred to the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd (2011) wherein it was observed that in the year 2004, even a Coolie would be earning an amount of Rs 4,500 in a month.

The Bench also considered the fact that the deceased had been proved to have a diploma in Pharmacy, though the exact remuneration was not substantiated. He was found to be in a partnership of a 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 was 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 ffive comprising of himself, his wife, minor daughter and two parents”, it held.

The Bench also upheld the High Court’s decision of applying a multiplier of 14 and the 25% future prospects, considering that the deceased was 43 years old and not in regular employment. “Insofar as the loss of consortium not only the wife as per New India Assurance Company v. Somwati and Ors., the children and the parents also are entitled at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each”, it held. The Bench thus awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs 20,80,000.

Cause Title: Smt. Manjula v. The Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Bijapur (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1093)

Appearance

Appellants: Advocate Preetam Shah, AOR K. Krishna Kumar

Respondents: AOR Arvind Gupta, Advocates Anil Kumar Sahu, Kanav Bhardwaj, Rahul Raj, Ashish Kumar Sinha, Binita Jaiswal

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Vinod ChandranJustice NV Anjaria

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.