IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1450 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Civil)No.24575 of 2025)

ANANDBEN MANUBHAI DEVAYATBHAI JALU ...Appellant Vs.

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ...Respondents O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The widow of the deceased-Manubhai Devayatbhai Jalu has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on account of death of her husband. The accident took place on 3^rd August, 1999. Initially, a Claim Petition was filed by the widow and the parents of the deceased. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural), while assessing the income of the deceased at ₹2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month, awarded compensation of ₹3,77,100/- (Rupees three Signature Not Verified lakhs seventy seven thousand and one hundred only). Aggrieved ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2026.02.12 Reason:

against the same, the claimants preferred appeal before the High Court. The High Court increased the income of the deceased from ₹2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month to ₹2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) per month. As a result, the amount of compensation was enhanced to ₹6,57,432/- (Rupees six lakhs fifty seven thousand four hundred and thirty two only) .

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the parents of the deceased expired. Hence, the present appeal has been filed only by the widow of the deceased.

4. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the income of the deceased has been taken on a lower side, merely on the basis of estimation. Whereas there was ample evidence produced on record in the form of bank account statement maintained by the deceased starting from May, 1997 till September, 1999 where regular transfer of amount can be evinced. If the average thereof is taken for the period of 25 months prior to the accident, the same comes out to more than ₹10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month. The deceased was earning this income while carrying on the work of transportation of sand, tilling the land owned by others or giving the tractor on hire. Hence, income of the deceased should be taken at least at ₹10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and compensation be enhanced in terms thereof.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company submitted that merely the bank statement cannot be relied upon for seeking enhancement of compensation. It was not proved from which source the amount was transferred in the account of the deceased. There was no other evidence led to prove the income of the deceased. It was further submitted that the tractor was in the name of the father of the deceased.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The fact remains that there were consistent entries in the bank account maintained by the deceased where certain amount was received by way of bank transfers. We note that the transactions are not intermittent rather quite regular in nature. The average thereof for the period of 25 months prior to the accident was ₹10,050/- (Rupees ten thousand fifty only) per month.

7. Considering the aforesaid fact, in our opinion, the income of the deceased can be increased from ₹2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) per month to ₹5,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month and applying the same principle, as has been done by the High Court, the amount of compensation can be enhanced. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the amount is paid. For elucidation, the same is comparatively drawn in the table given hereinbelow:

8. The enhanced amount, i.e., ₹4,76,068/- shall be paid to the Petitioner along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the same is paid.

9. For disbursement of compensation, the guidelines issued by this Court in Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal & Ors. [2025 INSC 36