(Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No…………..of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2025) (@ Diary No. 32291 of 2025), decided on December 10, 2025
Maneeta Singh and Others __________________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Virendra Pratap Singh and Another ________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No…………..of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2025) (@ Diary No. 32291 of 2025)§
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
1. The claimants in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation as awarded by the High Court wherein there was substantial enhancement from the award of the Tribunal.
2. Facts not in dispute are that on 13.09.2008, an accident occurred at around 08.30 am. A vehicle, driven rashly and negligently collided with the car in which the husband of the first appellant was travelling, killing him on the spot. It was the contention of the claimants that the deceased was engaged in videography and computer mixing work and used to earn Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) per month. The applicants claimed for a total compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs (Rupees twenty lakhs) against which the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,77,000/- (Rupees one lakh and seventy-seven thousand). The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to prove the income claimed by the family of the deceased and hence adopted Rs. 15,000/- per month as the income, made mention of, in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. The High Court enhanced the same to Rs. 48,000/- (Rupees forty-eight thousand) per annum and also awarded amounts as directed in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7,39,000/- (Rupees seven lakh and thirty-nine thousand).
4. In Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, this Court found that a Coolie would be entitled to a notional income of Rs. 4,500/- per year in the year 2004. Considering incremental increase as has been permitted by Pranay Sethi (supra), an enhancement of Rs. 500/- per year is reasonable even in the case of a Coolie which will take the income of a Coolie in the year 2008 in which the accident occurred to Rs. 6,500/-. In the above circumstances, this Court finds it reasonable to adopt the income claimed by the appellants at Rs. 7,000/-. As has been adopted by the High Court the multiplier is 17 and there should be future prospects at 40% and a deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses. The total compensation, hence payable to the claimants would be as under: –
| Sr. No. | Heads of Claim | Amount |
| 1. | Loss of dependency Rs. 7,000 × 12 × 17 × 140% × 3/4 | Rs. 14,99,400/- |
| 2. | Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- | Rs. 15,000/- |
| 3. | Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000 × 5 | Rs. 2,00,000/- |
| 4. | Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- | Rs. 15,000/- |
| Total amount | Rs. 17,29,400/- |
5. The above amount shall be paid to the claimants, after deducting the amount already paid, within a period of two months from the date of this order. Seventy five percent of the total amount, with interest shall be paid equally to appellants 1 to 3 and twenty five percent with interest shall be paid jointly to appellants 4 and 5.
6. The appeal stands allowed with the above modification.
7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
§ 2025 INSC 1438
