Full Judgment Text
Non-Reportable
2025 INSC 589
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. ________ OF 2025
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 22192-93 OF 2018)
AMARVEER KAUR AND ORS.
…APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
With
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. ________ OF 2025
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.8172-73 OF 2019)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded an
amount of ₹ 23,15,000/-, for the death of the husband of the
first claimant, who left behind him, five dependents: his wife,
two minor children, and both his parents. The liability was
cast on the Insurance Company who had insured the vehicle,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.04.29
18:05:58 IST
Reason:
st
rejecting their contention that the driver of the vehicle, the 1
Page 1 of 8
CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018
respondent in the claim petition did not have an effective
license and the license produced was fake.
3. The Insurance Company filed an appeal against the
liability cast on them and claimants sought enhancement of
compensation, in two different appeals, in which cross
objections were filed by the registered owner of the
offending vehicle. The High Court disposing of the appeals
and the cross objections reduced the compensation for loss
of income to ₹ 7,92,540/- and awarded amounts for loss of
consortium to the widow @ ₹ 40,000/-, funeral expenses and
₹
loss of estate respectively @ 15,000/- each as has been held
by a Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance
1
Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi .
4. We heard Mr. Anamay Mishra and Mr. C.B. Gururaj,
learned counsels for the claimant who pointed out that there
was clear evidence through the employer that the deceased
was getting a monthly salary of ₹ 15,000/- which was accepted
by the Tribunal; reduced to ₹ 3,700/- by the High Court. It was
also argued that since there were six members of the family,
th
for personal expenses, only 1/5 of the compensation for loss
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Page 2 of 8
CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018
of income ought to have been deducted as personal
expenses. It is also argued that loss of consortium to parents
and children also are to be awarded as has been found in
1
Pranay Sethi .
5. Ms. Prerna Mehta, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company argued that the compensation awarded by the
High Court was just compensation. The appeal of the insurer
was filed insofar as the liability cast on the Insurance
Company. It was clearly established by examining an
employee of the motor vehicle department that the license
was fake. Even if the Insurance Company is directed to pay
the amounts awarded, they should be given the right to
recover the award amounts with interest from the owner of
the vehicle.
6. The owner of the vehicle argued against the liability
cast on him by the Tribunal and the High Court placing
reliance on the decision of this Court in IFFCO Tokio
2
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta Devi . Even if a fake
license is produced by the driver, if it is a seemingly valid
driving license, unless such license is demonstrably fake on
2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1398
Page 3 of 8
CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018
the face of it, no employer would make enquiries as to its
genuineness and in such circumstance when clear breach by
the insured is not proved, the insurer has the liability, held
this Court, in the cited decision.
7. In the quantum appeal, we must notice the contention
raised on the income determined and the loss of consortium,
as was applicable to the children and the parents. Before the
Tribunal, the claimants had raised a contention that the
deceased was employed in a rice mill as an accountant, and
he was paid ₹ 15,000/- per month. One Jagdish Rai was
examined as PW3 who asserted that he was the proprietor of
the rice mill, but in his cross examination he specifically
stated that he did not maintain any books of accounts in the
mill and though he was paying provident fund for all his
employees, there was no such payment made with respect to
the deceased. The educational qualification of the deceased
to enable him to work as an accountant was also not proved.
The High Court hence rightly rejected the evidence of PW3.
The High Court then proceeded to compute the income at
₹ 3,700/- as applicable to an unskilled worker looking at the
minimum wages fixed by the State of Punjab for such
Page 4 of 8
CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018
workers. It is not clear as to from which document or
notification such income was taken by the Tribunal.
8. As far as the income for an unskilled labourer is
concerned, this Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal
3
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. fixed the notional
income of a coolie at ₹ 4,500/-per month in the year 2004. In
1
Pranay Sethi the Constitution Bench recognized the
principle that there would be incremental enhancement in
the case of even self-employed individuals in the
unorganized sector and also proposed an increase in the
income of such persons, as future prospects. Applying the
said logic, we are of the opinion that even if the deceased
was working in an unspecified job like a coolie considering
the increase of cost of living and economic advancements
over the years, it can be safely assumed that even a coolie
would be eligible for incremental enhancement of wages of
least ₹ 500/- per month in every subsequent year. In the
present case the accident occurred in the year 2010, 6 years
from 2004 in which year this court had fixed ₹ 4,500/- as
income per month for a coolie. Hence it can be safely
3
(2011) 13 SCC 236
Page 5 of 8
CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018
presumed that a coolie in the year 2010 would have earned
₹
an income of 7,500/-.
9. The deceased though was asserted to be 23 years of
age in the claim petition, the postmortem report showed his
age as 30 years and hence the multiplier taken at 17 is
perfectly in order. The deduction for personal expenses
should be 1/4 since, along with the deceased, the family
comprised of six members. The loss of dependency hence
comes to ₹ 7,500 x 12 x 17 x 140% x 3/4 = ₹ 16,06,500/-. The
self-employed person also must be deemed to have had the
1
future prospects at the rate of 40%, as held in Pranay Sethi .
10. As far as loss of consortium it has been held in New
4
India Assurance Company v. Somwati apart from spousal
consortium, filial and parental consortium loss also must be
compensated, thus entitling children and parents of the
deceased.
11. Hence, ₹ 40,000/- each is payable to the children as also
to the parents, hence an amount of ₹ 1,60,000/- will have to
be added bringing it to ₹ 2,00,000/- for all the five members.
The compensation payable will be ₹ 18,06,500/-, to which
4
(2020) 9 SCC 644
Page 6 of 8
CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018
shall be added compensation for loss of estate and funeral
₹
expenses @ 15000/- each taking the total award to
₹ 18,36,500/-.
12. Insofar as the appeal of the owner is concerned, we
need not investigate whether the petitioner has a valid
license. Admittedly, the driving license produced indicates
that so far as the non-transport vehicle is concerned, the
license is valid from the date of issuance 04.09.2006 to
03.09.2026 as is seen from the driving license produced
alongwith the counter affidavit of the insurer. However
insofar as the transport vehicle is concerned, the validity is
shown as between 23.06.2014 to 29.06.2017. Obviously
transport vehicle licenses are issued only for three years, and
it needs to be renewed every three years. The offending
vehicle provided by the petitioner admittedly was a goods
vehicle, being a Eicher/Canter vehicle. We need not hence
go into the question of whether the license was fake or not
since it was not established that as on the date of accident,
there was a valid license for driving a transport vehicle, as
held by the driver. We hence find no reason to interfere with
the order of the Tribunal and the High Court, wherein the
Page 7 of 8
CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018
liability to pay the compensation though cast on the
Insurance Company, they were given the authority to recover
the same from the owner of the vehicle.
13. The appeals are allowed with the above modification.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
….……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 29, 2025.
Page 8 of 8
CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018
2025 INSC 589
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. ________ OF 2025
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 22192-93 OF 2018)
AMARVEER KAUR AND ORS.
…APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
With
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. ________ OF 2025
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.8172-73 OF 2019)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded an
amount of ₹ 23,15,000/-, for the death of the husband of the
first claimant, who left behind him, five dependents: his wife,
two minor children, and both his parents. The liability was
cast on the Insurance Company who had insured the vehicle,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.04.29
18:05:58 IST
Reason:
st
rejecting their contention that the driver of the vehicle, the 1
Page 1 of 8
CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018
respondent in the claim petition did not have an effective
license and the license produced was fake.
3. The Insurance Company filed an appeal against the
liability cast on them and claimants sought enhancement of
compensation, in two different appeals, in which cross
objections were filed by the registered owner of the
offending vehicle. The High Court disposing of the appeals
and the cross objections reduced the compensation for loss
of income to ₹ 7,92,540/- and awarded amounts for loss of
consortium to the widow @ ₹ 40,000/-, funeral expenses and
₹
loss of estate respectively @ 15,000/- each as has been held
by a Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance
1
Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi .
4. We heard Mr. Anamay Mishra and Mr. C.B. Gururaj,
learned counsels for the claimant who pointed out that there
was clear evidence through the employer that the deceased
was getting a monthly salary of ₹ 15,000/- which was accepted
by the Tribunal; reduced to ₹ 3,700/- by the High Court. It was
also argued that since there were six members of the family,
th
for personal expenses, only 1/5 of the compensation for loss
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Page 2 of 8
CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018
of income ought to have been deducted as personal
expenses. It is also argued that loss of consortium to parents
and children also are to be awarded as has been found in
1
Pranay Sethi .
5. Ms. Prerna Mehta, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company argued that the compensation awarded by the
High Court was just compensation. The appeal of the insurer
was filed insofar as the liability cast on the Insurance
Company. It was clearly established by examining an
employee of the motor vehicle department that the license
was fake. Even if the Insurance Company is directed to pay
the amounts awarded, they should be given the right to
recover the award amounts with interest from the owner of
the vehicle.
6. The owner of the vehicle argued against the liability
cast on him by the Tribunal and the High Court placing
reliance on the decision of this Court in IFFCO Tokio
2
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta Devi . Even if a fake
license is produced by the driver, if it is a seemingly valid
driving license, unless such license is demonstrably fake on
2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1398
Page 3 of 8
CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018
the face of it, no employer would make enquiries as to its
genuineness and in such circumstance when clear breach by
the insured is not proved, the insurer has the liability, held
this Court, in the cited decision.
7. In the quantum appeal, we must notice the contention
raised on the income determined and the loss of consortium,
as was applicable to the children and the parents. Before the
Tribunal, the claimants had raised a contention that the
deceased was employed in a rice mill as an accountant, and
he was paid ₹ 15,000/- per month. One Jagdish Rai was
examined as PW3 who asserted that he was the proprietor of
the rice mill, but in his cross examination he specifically
stated that he did not maintain any books of accounts in the
mill and though he was paying provident fund for all his
employees, there was no such payment made with respect to
the deceased. The educational qualification of the deceased
to enable him to work as an accountant was also not proved.
The High Court hence rightly rejected the evidence of PW3.
The High Court then proceeded to compute the income at
₹ 3,700/- as applicable to an unskilled worker looking at the
minimum wages fixed by the State of Punjab for such
Page 4 of 8
CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018
workers. It is not clear as to from which document or
notification such income was taken by the Tribunal.
8. As far as the income for an unskilled labourer is
concerned, this Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal
3
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. fixed the notional
income of a coolie at ₹ 4,500/-per month in the year 2004. In
1
Pranay Sethi the Constitution Bench recognized the
principle that there would be incremental enhancement in
the case of even self-employed individuals in the
unorganized sector and also proposed an increase in the
income of such persons, as future prospects. Applying the
said logic, we are of the opinion that even if the deceased
was working in an unspecified job like a coolie considering
the increase of cost of living and economic advancements
over the years, it can be safely assumed that even a coolie
would be eligible for incremental enhancement of wages of
least ₹ 500/- per month in every subsequent year. In the
present case the accident occurred in the year 2010, 6 years
from 2004 in which year this court had fixed ₹ 4,500/- as
income per month for a coolie. Hence it can be safely
3
(2011) 13 SCC 236
Page 5 of 8
CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018
presumed that a coolie in the year 2010 would have earned
₹
an income of 7,500/-.
9. The deceased though was asserted to be 23 years of
age in the claim petition, the postmortem report showed his
age as 30 years and hence the multiplier taken at 17 is
perfectly in order. The deduction for personal expenses
should be 1/4 since, along with the deceased, the family
comprised of six members. The loss of dependency hence
comes to ₹ 7,500 x 12 x 17 x 140% x 3/4 = ₹ 16,06,500/-. The
self-employed person also must be deemed to have had the
1
future prospects at the rate of 40%, as held in Pranay Sethi .
10. As far as loss of consortium it has been held in New
4
India Assurance Company v. Somwati apart from spousal
consortium, filial and parental consortium loss also must be
compensated, thus entitling children and parents of the
deceased.
11. Hence, ₹ 40,000/- each is payable to the children as also
to the parents, hence an amount of ₹ 1,60,000/- will have to
be added bringing it to ₹ 2,00,000/- for all the five members.
The compensation payable will be ₹ 18,06,500/-, to which
4
(2020) 9 SCC 644
Page 6 of 8
CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018
shall be added compensation for loss of estate and funeral
₹
expenses @ 15000/- each taking the total award to
₹ 18,36,500/-.
12. Insofar as the appeal of the owner is concerned, we
need not investigate whether the petitioner has a valid
license. Admittedly, the driving license produced indicates
that so far as the non-transport vehicle is concerned, the
license is valid from the date of issuance 04.09.2006 to
03.09.2026 as is seen from the driving license produced
alongwith the counter affidavit of the insurer. However
insofar as the transport vehicle is concerned, the validity is
shown as between 23.06.2014 to 29.06.2017. Obviously
transport vehicle licenses are issued only for three years, and
it needs to be renewed every three years. The offending
vehicle provided by the petitioner admittedly was a goods
vehicle, being a Eicher/Canter vehicle. We need not hence
go into the question of whether the license was fake or not
since it was not established that as on the date of accident,
there was a valid license for driving a transport vehicle, as
held by the driver. We hence find no reason to interfere with
the order of the Tribunal and the High Court, wherein the
Page 7 of 8
CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018
liability to pay the compensation though cast on the
Insurance Company, they were given the authority to recover
the same from the owner of the vehicle.
13. The appeals are allowed with the above modification.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
….……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 29, 2025.
Page 8 of 8
CA @ SLP(C) Nos. 22192-93/2018