Read E-Judgment: https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/xpor/
Citation: 2025 INSC 590
Court: Supreme Court of India – Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27391 of 2018)
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia, *K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Date of Judgment: April 29, 2025
Motor Accident Compensation, Loss of Dependency, Future Prospects, Loss of Consortium, Just Compensation.
Held
- The Supreme Court held that the husband, though able-bodied, could not be assumed to be entirely non-dependent absent evidence of his employment. The family was deemed to comprise four members, warranting a deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses instead of 1/3rd.
- The income of ₹7,000 fixed by the Tribunal was upheld as the claimants did not appeal, but the High Court’s enhancement to ₹8,000 was applied for calculation. Future prospects were reinstated at 40% as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, given the deceased’s age (35 years) and self-employed status.
- Loss of consortium was extended to the children at ₹40,000 each, in addition to spousal consortium, as per New India Assurance Company v. Somwati (2020) 9 SCC 644. Compensation for loss of estate and funeral expenses was fixed at ₹15,000 each, and medical expenses at ₹21,966 based on bills. Loss of love and affection was not awarded separately, being subsumed under consortium.
- The Court awarded a total compensation of ₹17,84,766, including ₹16,12,800 for loss of dependency, emphasizing the principle of ‘just compensation’ as per the Constitution Bench. The award was modified without exceeding the Tribunal’s original grant, despite no appeal by the claimants.
Disposition: Appeal disposed of with modified compensation of ₹17,84,766. Pending applications, if any, disposed of.
Facts
The appellants sought compensation for the death of the first appellant’s wife, a pillion rider, who died on 24.02.2015, two days after a motorcycle accident on 22.02.2015. The Tribunal awarded ₹18,81,966, including ₹13,44,000 for loss of dependency, based on a monthly income of ₹7,000, 50% future prospects, a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 16. The High Court upheld the finding of rash and negligent driving by the motorcycle driver, enhanced the income to ₹8,000, deleted future prospects, and maintained the non-dependency of the husband. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Was the husband a dependent of the deceased?
- Was the income assessment and deduction for personal expenses appropriate?
- Were the claimants entitled to future prospects and revised compensation under conventional heads?
Procedural History
- Tribunal: Awarded ₹18,81,966, including loss of dependency, consortium, medical expenses, transport, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and love and affection.
- High Court: Upheld negligence, increased income to ₹8,000, deleted future prospects, and confirmed the husband’s non-dependency.
Holding
The Supreme Court modified the compensation to ₹17,84,766, holding:
- Dependency: The husband could not be presumed non-dependent without evidence of his employment. The family was treated as four members, reducing the personal expenses deduction to 1/4th.
- Income and Deduction: The Tribunal’s income of ₹7,000 was upheld due to no appeal by claimants, but the High Court’s ₹8,000 was used for calculation. A 1/4th deduction was applied.
- Future Prospects and Compensation: Future prospects were reinstated at 40% per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. Loss of consortium was awarded at ₹40,000 each for the husband and two children per New India Assurance Company v. Somwati (2020) 9 SCC 644. Loss of estate and funeral expenses were fixed at ₹15,000 each, medical expenses at ₹21,966, and loss of love and affection was excluded as subsumed under consortium.
Reasoning
The Court emphasized ‘just compensation’ per constitutional principles, adjusting the dependency deduction to reflect the husband’s partial reliance on the deceased’s income. It adhered to precedents for future prospects and consortium, ensuring proportional awards under conventional heads. The total award was kept below the Tribunal’s original grant, despite modifications, as no appeal challenged the income assessment.
Disposition
The appeal was disposed of with a modified award of ₹17,84,766. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
Significance
This case reinforces the principle of ‘just compensation’ in motor accident claims, clarifies dependency assessments, and aligns future prospects and consortium awards with established precedents.
Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)
- What was the primary basis for the appellants’ claim in the case?
a) Property damage due to a motorcycle accident
b) Compensation for the death of a pillion rider in a motorcycle accident
c) Personal injury sustained by the appellants
d) Breach of contract by the insurance company
Answer: b) Compensation for the death of a pillion rider in a motorcycle accident - What was the monthly income of the deceased finally considered by the Supreme Court for calculating loss of dependency?
a) ₹7,000
b) ₹8,000
c) ₹15,000
d) ₹10,000
Answer: b) ₹8,000 - What deduction for personal expenses was applied by the Supreme Court?
a) 1/3rd
b) 1/2
c) 1/4th
d) No deduction
Answer: c) 1/4th - What percentage was awarded for future prospects by the Supreme Court, following the precedent in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi?
a) 50%
b) 40%
c) 25%
d) 0%
Answer: b) 40% - Which of the following was NOT included in the Supreme Court’s final compensation award?
a) Loss of consortium
b) Loss of love and affection
c) Medical expenses
d) Loss of estate
Answer: b) Loss of love and affection - What was the total compensation awarded by the Supreme Court?
a) ₹18,81,966
b) ₹17,84,766
c) ₹13,44,000
d) ₹16,12,800
Answer: b) ₹17,84,766 - Why did the Supreme Court include the husband as a dependent?
a) He was unemployed and fully dependent on the deceased
b) There was no evidence of his employment, suggesting partial dependency
c) He was a legal heir, automatically qualifying as a dependent
d) The High Court had already declared him a dependent
Answer: b) There was no evidence of his employment, suggesting partial dependency - Which precedent guided the Supreme Court’s decision on awarding loss of consortium to children?
a) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
b) New India Assurance Company v. Somwati
c) Both a and b
d) None of the above
Answer: b) New India Assurance Company v. Somwati
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
- What was the main issue in the Sri Malakappa case?
The case centered on determining appropriate compensation for the death of a pillion rider in a motorcycle accident, focusing on issues like the dependency status of the deceased’s husband, the income assessment, deductions for personal expenses, and entitlements to future prospects and conventional heads like loss of consortium. - Why did the Supreme Court modify the Tribunal’s award?
The Supreme Court modified the award to ensure ‘just compensation,’ adjusting the deduction for personal expenses to 1/4th (considering the husband as partially dependent), reinstating 40% future prospects per Pranay Sethi, and extending loss of consortium to the children per Somwati. It also excluded loss of love and affection as it was subsumed under consortium. - How did the Supreme Court determine the deceased’s income?
The Tribunal fixed the deceased’s income at ₹7,000, which was not challenged by the claimants. However, the High Court enhanced it to ₹8,000, and the Supreme Court used this enhanced figure for calculating loss of dependency, as it was part of the record, despite no appeal by the claimants. - Why was the husband considered a dependent by the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court found no evidence of the husband’s employment, rejecting the assumption that he was entirely non-dependent. It deemed him partially dependent, treating the family as comprising four members (deceased, husband, and two children) for calculating personal expenses deduction. - What role did precedents play in the judgment?
The Supreme Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 to award 40% future prospects for a self-employed person under 40 and New India Assurance Company v. Somwati (2020) 9 SCC 644 to extend loss of consortium to the children, ensuring consistency with established legal standards. - Why was the compensation reduced from the Tribunal’s award?
The final award of ₹17,84,766 was lower than the Tribunal’s ₹18,81,966 because the Supreme Court reduced future prospects from 50% to 40%, excluded loss of love and affection, and adjusted conventional heads (e.g., loss of estate and funeral expenses to ₹15,000 each), while ensuring the award remained ‘just’ and proportional. - What is the significance of this case?
The case reinforces the principle of ‘just compensation’ in motor accident claims, clarifies the assessment of dependency (especially for spouses without proven income), and aligns awards for future prospects and consortium with constitutional and precedential standards, balancing fairness and legal consistency.