SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 491

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Shivaleela And Others – Appellants
A1: Shivaleela
A2: Kumari Kavya
A3: Kumari Purnima
A4: Kumari Shravya
A5: Master Veeresh
A6: K. H. M. Shivamurthaiah
Versus
The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. LTD. & OTHERS – Respondents
R1: The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
R2: Sri. Girish B.
R3: Dr. Basavaraja
Civil Appeal Nos. 3840-3841 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 12193-12194 of 2024]
Decided On : 17-03-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ashwin V. Kotemath, Adv. Mr. M.R. Hiremathad, Adv. Mr. Harisha S.R., AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sunder Lal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, AOR Mr. Asutosh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Prasad, Adv. Mrs. Gunjan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, Adv. Mrs. Rajani Shahi, Adv. Mr. Bhagwan Jee Thakur, Adv. Mr. Subhash Ghosh, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Death in motor accident - Unlike tortious liability, compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is concerned with providing stability and continuity in peoples'' lives in future.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 168 and 173 - Death in motor accident - Quantum of compensation - Compensation of Rs.25,49,000/- alongwith 6% interest awarded by MACT - High Court reduced compensation amount to Rs.20,61,320/- - Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation as per contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forward-looking - Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly concerned with making up for past and reinstating a claimant to his original position, compensation under the Act is concerned with providing stability and continuity in peoples' lives in future - In case in hand, deceased was aged about 32 years and having monthly income of Rs.40,000/- - Fixation of monthly income ultimately as Rs.8,000/- per month by High Court cannot be justified in any manner - Even claim of appellants of income being Rs.40,000/- per month is also not borne out - On an overall circumspection of entire facts and circumstances of cases and material on record, it may be reasonably assumed that deceased was having monthly income of Rs.15,000/- - Compensation awarded by High Court under other heads, is in conformity with law - Total Compensation of Rs. 35,66,600/- alongwith 6% interest awarded. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals are directed against common Final Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2023 in MFAs No.6192/2014 (MV-D) and No.2087/2014 (MV-D) passed by High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru challenging award dated 10.01.2014 passed by MACT, whereby High Court dismissed appeal filed by appellants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by MACT, and partly allowed appeal filed by first respondent-Insurance Company.

Findings of Court:

Impugned Order is modified to the extent that monthly income of deceased would be taken as Rs.15,000/ per month instead of Rs.8,000/- per month. Further, rate of interest shall be 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation, instead of 6% per annum.

Result : Appeals partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeals are directed against the common Final Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2023 in MFAs No.6192/2014 (MV-D) and No.2087/2014 (MV-D) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) challenging the award dated 10.01.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal IX at Harapanahalli (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MACT’) in MVC No.73 of 2012, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the MACT, and partly allowed the appeal filed by the first respondent-Insurance Company.

FACTS IN BRIEF:

3. Mr. K.H.M. Virupakshaiah, the husband of the appellant no.1, son of appellant no.6 and father of appellants no.2 to 5 met with an accident on 05.05.2012, unfortunately resulting in his death. On 05.05.2012 at 12:15 PM, the deceased was riding his Bajaj motorcycle along with a pillion rider near Itagi Village on the Harihar-Hospete road. When they reached near Talakallu Village cross, they were hit by a Ford car bearing Registration No.KA36M1979, which was driven by respondent no.2 and, as claimed, in a rash and negligent manner with high speed. The Ford car hit the motorcycle of the deceased on the right side leading to his death. Crime No.24/2012 was registered initially under Sections 2791[‘279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.— Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.’], 3372[‘337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.— Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.’] and 3383[‘338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others .— Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.’] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and upon the deceased dying, Section 304-A4[‘304-A. Causing death by negligence.— Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.’] of the IPC was also added. On 07.09.2012, the appellants filed MVC No.73 of 2012 against the respondents, seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.77,15,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Seven Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand). The MACT, by Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2014, awarded a compensation of Rs.25,49,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs Forty-Nine Thousand) with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

4. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred Miscellaneous First Appeal No.6192 of 2014 (MV-D) before the High Court. The respondent- Insurance Company also filed Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2087 of 2014 (MV-D). The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the appellants’/claimants’ appeal and partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-Insurance Company. The High Court reduced the compensation of Rs.25,49,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs Forty- Nine Thousand) to Rs.20,61,320/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Sixty-One Thousan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top