Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points: Case Details: The judgment pertains to Civil Appeals No. 9474 of 2025 and No. 9475 of 2025, involving The New India Assurance Company Limited and National Insurance Company Limited (Appellants) versus Usha Devi and Others (Respondents), decided on 14-07-2025 by a bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, JJ. (!) (!) Core Legal Principle (No-Fault Liability): Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claim petition does not require proof of negligence; the question of negligence cannot be looked into while entertaining such a claim. (!) (!) Overriding Effect of Section 163-A: Section 163-A has an overriding effect on all other provisions of the Act, including Section 166. Therefore, compensation determined under a Section 163-A petition must follow the structured formula of the Second Schedule, not the provisions of Section 166. (!) (!) Status of Deceased as Third Party: In the absence of positive evidence proving the deceased was at fault (especially since the insurer failed to examine the sole eyewitness, the deceased's brother), the deceased is considered a 'third party' in relation to the offending vehicle (the dumper), making the insurer of that vehicle liable. (!) (!) Compensation Calculation: Annual Loss of Income: Calculated at Rs. 26,667/- (based on an accepted annual income of Rs. 40,000/- after deducting personal expenses). (!) Multiplier: A multiplier of 17 was adopted as the deceased was 35 years old. (!) Loss of Income Award: Rs. 4,53,339/- (Rs. 26,667 x 17). (!) General Damages: Rs. 9,500/- awarded for loss of consortium (Rs. 2,000), funeral expenses (Rs. 5,000), and loss of estate (Rs. 2,500). (!) Medical Expenses: Capped at Rs. 15,000/- as per the Second Schedule. (!) Total Award: Rs. 4,77,839/- with interest at 8% p.a. (!) Final Order: The appeals were allowed in part. The amount deposited by one insurer was refunded to them, while the amount deposited by the other insurer was transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal for disbursement to the claimants in specific ratios. (!) (!) (!)

New India Assurance Company Limited vs Usha Devi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1054

J. K. MAHESHWARI, ARAVIND KUMAR
New India Assurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Usha Devi – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Kk Bhat, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikas Verma, Adv. Ms. Sapna Verma, Adv. Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Anju, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. V. Elanchezhiyan, AOR Mr. Vikas Verma, AOR Ms. Sapna Verma, Adv. Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Kavita Verma, Adv. Mr. Anamay Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Yunas, Adv. Ms. Anju, Adv. Ms. Vibha Keshari Prasad Singh, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay K Chadha, Adv. Mrs. Vandana Beri, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Kk Bhat, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

Case Details: The judgment pertains to Civil Appeals No. 9474 of 2025 and No. 9475 of 2025, involving The New India Assurance Company Limited and National Insurance Company Limited (Appellants) versus Usha Devi and Others (Respondents), decided on 14-07-2025 by a bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, JJ. (!) (!)
Core Legal Principle (No-Fault Liability): Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claim petition does not require proof of negligence; the question of negligence cannot be looked into while entertaining such a claim. (!) (!)
Overriding Effect of Section 163-A: Section 163-A has an overriding effect on all other provisions of the Act, including Section 166. Therefore, compensation determined under a Section 163-A petition must follow the structured formula of the Second Schedule, not the provisions of Section 166. (!) (!)
Status of Deceased as Third Party: In the absence of positive evidence proving the deceased was at fault (especially since the insurer failed to examine the sole eyewitness, the deceased's brother), the deceased is considered a 'third party' in relation to the offending vehicle (the dumper), making the insurer of that vehicle liable. (!) (!)
Compensation Calculation:
- Annual Loss of Income: Calculated at Rs. 26,667/- (based on an accepted annual income of Rs. 40,000/- after deducting personal expenses). (!)
- Multiplier: A multiplier of 17 was adopted as the deceased was 35 years old. (!)
- Loss of Income Award: Rs. 4,53,339/- (Rs. 26,667 x 17). (!)
- General Damages: Rs. 9,500/- awarded for loss of consortium (Rs. 2,000), funeral expenses (Rs. 5,000), and loss of estate (Rs. 2,500). (!)
- Medical Expenses: Capped at Rs. 15,000/- as per the Second Schedule. (!)
- Total Award: Rs. 4,77,839/- with interest at 8% p.a. (!)
Final Order: The appeals were allowed in part. The amount deposited by one insurer was refunded to them, while the amount deposited by the other insurer was transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal for disbursement to the claimants in specific ratios. (!) (!) (!)

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction and challenge to jurisdiction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background of the accident and claim. (Para 3 , 4)
3. high court's judgment and appeal context. (Para 5 , 6)
4. arguments presented by appellants and respondents. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. court's views and analysis of the applicable law. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. calculation of compensation and use of statutory provisions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
7. liability and status of deceased as a third party. (Para 16 , 17)
8. final decision and distribution of awarded compensation. (Para 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

3. Facts essential for the adjudication of the present matter are briefly narrated. On the unfortunate night of 15.11.2006, Mr. Surender Singh was driving a truck bearing No. HR-38L/6727, and his vehicle was hit by the dumper bearing registration No. HR-38H-9100 in the area of Pali Crusher Zone, and due to the impact he sustained serious injuries, and was rushed to GTB Hospital, Delhi, where he expired away on 22.11.2006 while being treated. FIR No. 411 dated 15.11.2006 came to be registered u/s 279/337/ 304-A IPC, 1860 at Police Station Ballabgarh against the driver of the dumper. A claim petition under S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(SC) 1054

J. K. MAHESHWARI, ARAVIND KUMARNew India Assurance Company Limited – AppellantVersusUsha Devi – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

Related Judgments

New India Assurance Company Limited VS Usha Devi - 2025 7 Supreme 385

United India Insurance Co Ltd VS Geeta Devi - 2021 Supreme(Raj) 943

United India Insurance Co Ltd VS Geeta Devi - 2021 Supreme(Raj) 1608

Sonalben Bhanabhai Tadvi, Minor VS Madhuben Bhagubhai Tadvi - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 168

Regional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd VS Parimala - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 1000

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Represented by its Branch Manager vs Janagama Anitha - 2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1973

Renuka Mahabaleshwar Bhat VS Azeez Rahman, S/o. Mohammad Shafi Shaikh - 2024 Supreme(Kar) 115

Manager The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Vanaja W/o Late K.H. Haleshappa - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 796

S.Yadamma vs Shivarathri Sailu - 2025 Supreme(Telangana) 2072

Mala Koushik, W/o. Late Kanhaiya Koushik vs Parmjeet Siingh, S/o. Sujeet Singh - 2025 Supreme(Chh) 497

J. K. MAHESHWARI, ARAVIND KUMAR
New India Assurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Usha Devi – Respondent