Shivaleela vs. The Divisional Manager

1
2025 INSC 357
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 202 5
[ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.12193-12194 OF 2024 ]
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
J U D G M E N T
Signature Not Verified
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.03.18
17:00:33 IST
Reason:
Leave granted.

2
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

3
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
1 2 3
initially under Sections 279 , 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and upon the deceased
4
dying, Section 304-A 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

3
‘ 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. ’

4
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
Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty).
SUBMISSION BY THE APPELLANTS:
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased
was aged about 32 years and had an old father, mother, wife, three
minor daughters and one minor son at the time of the accident and an
income of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) per month.
6. It was submitted that the family of the deceased owned 9 Acres
23 Cents of irrigated land on which various varieties of crops and fruits
like Banana, Chiku , Anjeer , Cotton etc., with the guidance of officers of
the concerned Agricultural Department, was being cultivated from
which a yearly income of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) was raised
5
and the saving was Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) per year. It
6
was further submitted that the deceased was also doing milk-vending
5
Deposition of PW1
6
Deposition of PW3.

5
and earned Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) per month therefrom.
Further, it was submitted that the family owned a tractor-trailer and the
deceased was earning a sum of Rs.9,000 (Rupees Nine Thousand) per
7
month on account of hiring/driving of the tractor-trailer.
7. It was submitted that the sudden death of the deceased left the
dependants without proper support as he was the main force behind
the family’s agriculture, milk-vending and hiring/driving businesses. It
was pointed out that the wife has to take care of the minor children and
the father is old. It was submitted that though it has come on record
that there was another brother of the deceased, but that could have
lessened the earning of the petitioner by only one-third. It was
submitted that initially the MACT has taken the notional income as
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month without looking into the
documents which were produced by the Bank Manager/PW5 who
admitted to advancing a loan of Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
Twenty Thousand) for agriculture purpose and the deposition of the
wholesale vendor/PW6 who used to buy the banana crops grown on
the field of the deceased along with a list of sales exhibited in the
proceedings showing that they varied from Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees
Three Lakhs) a year to almost more than Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
7
Deposition of PW4.

6
Lakhs) in a period of only three months. Thus, it was submitted that the
monthly income would be Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand), which
had been drastically reduced by the MACT to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) without giving any reason(s) to justify the same.
8. It was submitted that the High Court had further caused
injustice by reducing the monthly income to Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight
Thousand), without taking into consideration the relevant factors which
were required to be taken note of. Learned counsel prayed for this
Court’s intervention and for justice to be served.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT:
9. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company
submitted that the deceased was one of the two sons of the loan-
holder and thus the income had to be divided among the three, as such
Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) per month was a reasonable and
correct assessment of the deceased’s earning by the High Court. It
was further submitted that the MACT considered the evidence and the
High Court has also taken note of it. Learned counsel urged that the
High Court has been more practical in assessing the income, which

7
cannot be faulted. Hence, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the
appeals.
ANALYSIS, REASONING & CONCLUSION:
10. Having given our anxious thought, this Court finds that both the
MACT as also the High Court had not correctly approached the issue.
When evidence was there before the MACT with regard to loan being
advanced of Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Thousand) and
that of PW6, who purchased the banana crops from the deceased,
stating that the latest transaction amounted to more than Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs) within a few months, which could not be
controverted by the respondent-Insurance Company, coupled with the
fact that there was a tractor in the name of the family and also
evidence of PW3 to the effect that the deceased used to supply milk,
which is also reflected in the passbook of the Milk Producer’s Co-
operative Society showing payments being made to the mother of the
deceased of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) per month, the MACT
and the High Court erred in assessing the income on the lower side.
11. Bearing in mind the evidences adduced by the depositions of
PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 in totality, it is clear that the deceased had

8
a major role in the businesses referred to supra . Going by the
cumulative income on all three sources, it is difficult to accept that the
income of the deceased was restricted to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) per month as decided by the MACT, much less Rs.8,000/-
(Rupees Eight Thousand) per month as decided by the High Court. The
fact that the father and the mother of the deceased were also claimants
before the MACT and the mother having passed away during the
interregnum itself shows that they were advanced in age and thus, the
deceased, but obviously, would be presumed to have carried out the
major responsibility as is done in such joint family, especially since the
businesses of agriculturist, hiring/driving and milk-vending are of a
physical and strenuous nature, which cannot be seriously undertaken
ordinarily for long periods of time by elder persons.
12. Upon a conspectus of the material on record especially apropos
the deceased’s income, with the MACT, it is clear that the fixation of
monthly income ultimately as Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) per
month by the High Court cannot be justified in any manner. At the same
time, even the claim of the appellants of the income being Rs.40,000/-
(Rupees Forty Thousand) per month is also not borne out.

9
13. Thus, on an overall circumspection of the entire facts and
circumstances of the cases and material on record, we opine that it
may be reasonably assumed that the deceased was having a monthly
income of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) per month. The
compensation awarded by the High Court under the other heads, being
in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the decisions in
Smt. Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121
and National Insurance Company Ltd. v Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16
SCC 680 , does not require any interference. In K Ramya v National
Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338 , after taking note of,

as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is
essentially forward-looking. Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly
concerned with making up for the past and reinstating a claimant to his
original position, the compensation under the Act is concerned with

present coram has respectfully restated the said observations in S
Vishnu Ganga v Oriental Insurance Company Limited , 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 182 .

10
14. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is modified to the extent that
the monthly income of the deceased would be taken as Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) per month instead of Rs.8,000/-(Rupees
Eight Thousand) per month. Further, the 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. Thus, the compensation will be as follows:

15. Accordingly, the appeals stand partly allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
16. Parties to bear their own costs.

11
17. I.A. No.65015/2024 seeking permission to file additional
documents is allowed; permission as prayed for is granted. I.A.
No.65016/2024 [Exemption from filing Official Translation] is dismissed
as infructuous.
………………..........................J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
…………………..................…..J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
NEW DELHI
MARCH 17, 2025