1. Motor accident resulting in death and injuries — Claim for compensation before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal — Appeal against High Court modification of award. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1743
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. ANJARIA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Samyak Jain And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Kesrilal Mehta And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5289 of 2025
Decided On : 24-09-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR (Arguing Counsel)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Lalit Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Anith Johnson, Adv. (Arguing Counsel) Ms. Khushi Sehrawat, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR (Arguing Counsel)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Lalit Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Anith Johnson, Adv. (Arguing Counsel) Ms. Khushi Sehrawat, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR
The calculation of compensation for dependents must accurately reflect the deceased's income, consider relevant income tax rates, and ensure that all lawful dependents, including unmarried daughters, are recognized for consortium claims.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation calculation - The High Court modified the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal's award, enhancing compensation from Rs. 50,51,000/- to Rs. 55,27,800/- with 7% interest. The issues included erroneous income tax deductions, exclusion of an unmarried daughter as a dependent, and inadequate consortium awards. The court observed that tax must align with prevailing slabs, that an unmarried daughter is a dependent, and that consortium must be awarded to each claimant. (Paras 2, 3, 3.2, 6.2)
Findings of Court:
The judgment required recalculating compensation considering proper indices for future prospects and personal expenses.
Result: Appeal is partially allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
tort
-
motor vehicle accident
-
compensation calculation
- income tax deduction (Para 5)
- dependency and personal expenses
- consortium and statutory awards
-
compensation calculation
-
motor vehicle accident
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over income tax deduction method — Dependency status of unmarried daughter — Entitlement to separate consortium amounts for each claimant. (Para 2 )
3. Income tax must follow applicable slabs — Unmarried daughters are dependents — Consortium is a compendious term requiring separate awards for each dependent. (Para 5 )
4. Appeal partially allowed — Compensation enhanced based on corrected tax slabs, dependency count, and separate consortium awards. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. How should income tax be deducted from the deceased's income for calculating compensation in motor accident claims?
Income tax should be deducted according to the tax slabs prevalent at the time of the accident, rather than applying a flat percentage rate. (Para 5 )
JUDGMENT :
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
The challenge in this appeal is addressed to judgment and order dated 17th July, 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2499 of 2015 and allied cases. The High Court allowed the appeal before it by partially modifying the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Bara, enhancing the compensation payable to the claimants from Rs. 50,51,000/- to Rs. 55,27,800/- with interest at the rate of 7% to be paid on the enhanced amount on the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment.
2. The appellants-claimants are aggrieved on three counts. In other words, for assailing the judgment of the High Court, the following grounds are raised.
(i) Deduction of income tax at flat 20% on the income of the deceased is erroneous, instead of tax in accordance with the tax slab prevalent at the time of occurrence of the accident.
(ii) The unmarried daughter is not treated as dependent.
(iii) The amount towards consortium has to be awarded separately to each of the claimants.
3. The proceedings of the Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bara, were initiated pursuant to the accident which took place on 05.09.2010, in which one Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain died. The deceased happens to be the father of the appellants-claimants No. 1, 3 and 4, whereas husband of claimant No. 2. In the said accident, along with the deceased, appellant–claimant No. 2–wife Gunmala Jain, appellant–Claimant No. 3, daughter, Ritu Jain sustained grievous injuries.
3.1 On the fateful day the deceased was going from Singoli to Shivpuri by Indica car bearing No. MP-44- C-0185 with his wife Gunmala Jain and daughter Ritu Jain. It was around 11:00 am when they reached near Mandola Phatak, a tractor bearing registration No. RJ-28- R-2736 which was driven rash and negligently came all of a sudden, rushing from Shahabad Road and dashed with the car resulting into the death of Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain and inflicting injuries to the wife and daughter.
3.2 The First Information Report was lodged on 30.09.2010 at the police station, Kotwali Bara, a charge- sheet was filed holding the driver of the tractor named Kesarailal responsible.
3.3 The said Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain who had sustained injuries and on 30.09.2010 while being treated at the Max Hospital, Delhi, succumbed to death. He was 59 years of age working as Medical Officer in the government hospital receiving salary of Rs. 56,509/- per month. The claim petition No. 3 of 2012 was filed by the appellants before the Tribunal.
3.4 The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Bara accepting the plea that the deceased had been earning Rs. 56,509/- per month, calculated his annual income at Rs. 6,50,000/-. The Tribunal deducted Rs. 10,000/- per month at the rate of 20% from the said income towards the income tax, resultantly adopting the figure of Rs. 46,000/- as monthly income for the purpose of calculating the compensation. For deducting the personal expenses, the Tribunal followed the dictum of compensation in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 and deducted one-fourth amount towards personal expenses on the basis of that there were four dependents of the deceased. It thus assessed the total compensation of Rs. 50,51,000/- by applying the precedent for determining the compensation.
3.5 The claimants preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court enhanced the amount of compensation by Rs. 4,76,800/- to hold that the claimants were entitled to total Rs. 55,27,800/- with 7% interest requiring the Insurance Company to deposit an additional amount along with interest.
3.6 The High Court recorded its findings to observe that:
(a) The salary certificate of the deceased indicated that he was getting a salary of Rs. 56,509/-. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in deducting an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month towards income tax;
(b) However the Tribunal had failed to award amount towards futu
