(Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.)
Upendra Panda and Others _______________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Meghanad Parida and Another __________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 3484 of 2026, decided on March 17, 2026
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The appellants are the claimants who are concerned with the death of a 22 year old in a motor vehicle accident; the father and siblings of the deceased. There is no dispute about the accident and the negligence which is the cause of death and the coverage of the vehicle by a valid insurance policy.
2. Sri. Chitta Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that despite a certificate of the employer having been produced, the monthly income was taken at a far lesser amount. It is also submitted that there was no future prospects computed as is the mandate under National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi1.
3. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, however, points out that the appeal is from a consent order, which is opposed by the appellants on the ground that the Court is concerned with the award of ‘just compensation’.
4. Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto2, found that even if the compensation claimed was lesser than that entitled, that would not be an impediment in awarding just compensation. In the present case, we find that the Court offered a lumpsum enhancement which was accepted by the Counsel for the claimants. The total amount after the enhancement would be Rs. 5,09,000/-, which is far lesser than Rs. 8,00,000/- claimed in the petition. We cannot dismiss the appeal on the consent expressed by the learned Counsel for the claimants, especially since the adjudication of a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act is not strictly an adversarial litigation. There are decisions galore on how computation has to be in a claim for compensation pursuant to a death or disability on account of a motor vehicle accident and still the insurance companies wait for a claim petition to be decided before a claim is addressed properly by the company itself, when by issuance of a policy they are legally bound to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. We hence proceed to consider the appeal with respect to the quantum enhancement claimed.
5. The accident occurred in the year 2009. This Court in 2004 in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.3 held that even a coolie is entitled to a monthly income of Rs. 4,500/-. Hence a claim of Rs. 5,000/- by the claimants cannot be reduced even if the exact remuneration is not established.
6. Going by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi1, we compute the compensation in the following manner, adopting the income of Rs. 5,000/- for the deceased as the monthly income, in accordance with the claim petition:
| Sl. No. | Compensation for | Amount |
| 1. | Loss of income (5000 × 12 × 18 × 140% × 1/2) | Rs. 7,56,000/- |
| 2. | Funeral expenses | Rs. 15,000/- |
| 3. | Loss of estate | Rs. 15,000/- |
| 4. | Filial compensation entitlement only to the father of the deceased | Rs. 40,000/- |
| Total | Rs. 8,26,000/- |
7. The above amount shall be paid with 9% interest as directed by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment after deducting the amounts already paid.
8. The appeal is allowed in the aforestated terms.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
2 (2023) 1 SCC 204
3 (2011) 13 SCC 236
