Rani @ Raj Kumari vs. Kamlakat Gupta

NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1393

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5224 OF 2024

RANI @ RAJ KUMARI AND OTHERS
…APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

KAMLAKAT GUPTA AND OTHERS

…RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Seven Appellants - the original claimants
have filed this Appeal against judgment and award
of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal from
order no. 1493 of 2013, seeking enhancement in the
compensation in respect of death of 33 years old
Sobran Singh, who died in a vehicular accident.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2025.12.06
12:42:27 IST
Reason:
1.1. Appellant No. 1 is the widow of the deceased
whereas Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the three
Page 1 of 10


minor daughters and minor son of the deceased
respectively, appellant No. 6 is the father, and
appellant No. 7 is the mother of the deceased.

2. The High Court allowed the appeal of the
claimants enhancing the total compensation from
Rs. 7,28,500/- to Rs. 9,20,500/- with interest at
7%, which was awarded by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal. Contending that the amount of
compensation is required to be further enhanced, it
was pleaded before this Court that the High Court
committed an error in awarding only Rs. 70,000/-
towards non-pecuniary heads, further erred in
applying the multiplier of 15 instead of 17 and erred
also in not awarding the due compensation in
respect of other conventional heads.

3. On the fateful day, that is on 02.09.2009,
when the accident occurred, the said Sobran Singh
was going to his home Kot from Jhansi on his
motorcycle bearing registration No. U.P.-93-K-4069.
At around 7 p.m., the motorcyclist Sobran Singh
had reached near the bridge ahead of village Bhojla.
At that time a Jeep Gypsy bearing No. UP-93-Q-
6471 came from the opposite direction. The said
vehicle was stated to be driven in rash and negligent
manner. It dashed with the motorcycle. As a result
of the accident, Sobran Singh sustained grievous
injuries on his head and legs.
Page 2 of 10



3.1. Sobran Singh was taken to the Medical
College, Jhansi for the treatment. From the Jhansi
Medical College, he was shifted to the Gwalior
Hospital. While being treated at the Gwalior Hospital
on 10.09.2009, he succumbed to injuries, after 8
days of the accident.

3.2. At the time of the accident, the deceased
was 33 years of age and was working in a Rajaram
Stone Crusher. His case was that he was earning Rs.
6000/- per month from the crusher company. His
further case was that he owned agricultural field
admeasuring 3-1/2 Bighas and that 20 Bighas of
land was given to him in the family division and that
in the said land, he used to engage in farming.
According to the appellants’ case, the deceased had
an income of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the
farming activity in addition to Rs. 6,000/- per month
which he had been receiving as salary for his
crusher related job.

3.3. By filing Motor Accidents Claims Petition
No. 668 of 2009 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988, the widow of the deceased and other
claimants prayed for compensation of Rs.
26,10,000/-. The Motor Accident Case Tribunal,
Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’)
proceeded to adjudicate the compensation after
Page 3 of 10


framing the issues. The issue whether the offending
vehicle Gypsy jeep was being driven with negligence
and carelessness, and accordingly it hit the
motorcycle, was answered in positive in favour of the
claimants. It was recorded that the Gypsy driver
possessed a valid license on the date of the accident.

3.4. On the basis of the evidence considered by
the Tribunal the total compensation which came to
be awarded was Rs. 7,28,500/- with 6% interest
from the date of filing of application till payment.
The Tribunal took the monthly income of the
deceased to be Rs. 4,500/- and determined the total
compensation awarding amounts under different
heads as under,

Page 4 of 10

3.5. The High Court while upward revising the
compensation to total Rs. 9,20,500/- with 7%
interest, added 40% towards future prospects to
arrive at the total annual income at Rs. 56,700/-
th
after deducting 1/4 amount towards personal
expenses. While the Tribunal had taken the
multiplier of 17, the High Court adopted the
multiplier of 15. The High Court enhanced the
amount under the head of loss of dependency from
Rs. 6,88,500/- which was awarded by Tribunal to
Rs. 8,50,500/-. The High Court thereafter granted
fixed amount of Rs. 70,000/- towards non-
pecuniary heads of consortium, etc.

4. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sweta Rani for
the claimants and learned advocate Mr. Manjeet
Chawla for respondent no. 1.

5. Having considered the facts pleaded and
the evidence led before the Tribunal and after
hearing the parties, it is to be observed that the case
of the claimants that the deceased had been earning
Rs. 6,000/- in respect of his job at the crusher unit
Page 5 of 10


company was supported by documents no. 26C2/1,
26C2/2 and 26C2/15 which were Khatauni and a
certificate issued by the Rajaram Stone Crusher
where the deceased was employed. It was stated in
the certificate that the deceased Sobran Singh was
given field work and the salary paid to him was Rs.
6,000/- per month.

5.1. Although the Tribunal and the High Court
took the view that the Certificate was not supported
with other proof and was not liable therefore to be
accepted at its face value, there is no gainsaying that
the Certificate and the Khatauni were issued by the
employer-Stone Crusher Company. It is reasonable
to accept that the deceased was getting Rs. 6,000/-
as monthly salary from the stone crusher company,
for, it is normal to expect that a person employed in
this stone crusher unit would earn Rs. 6.000/- every
month.

5.2. It was the further case of the claimants that
the deceased had also a sizable income, claimed to
be Rs. 10,000/- per month, from the farming activity
and the field work carried out by him at the family
land belonging to them. The factum of the deceased
working in his farm and earning therefrom is not
controverted as such. Therefore, even if the direct
evidence regarding exact amount of income had not
come on record, the deceased could be presumed to
Page 6 of 10


have some income from the agricultural activity in
the said land. Therefore, it is proper to grant
addition of Rs. 2,000/- towards income from
farming activity for the purpose of assessing
compensation. It could be concluded for the purpose
of assessing compensation that the deceased was
able to earn total income of Rs. 8,000/- per month.

5.3. The deceased was in the age group of 30 to
35 years. As laid down in National Insurance
1
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others , it
would be proper to apply multiplier of Rs. 16, as
against 17 adopted by the Tribunal and 15 taken by
the High Court. There are in all 7 dependants of the
th
deceased which would require deduction of 1/5
th
amount towards personal expenses instead of 1/4
deduction applied by the Tribunal as well as the
High Court. After adding 40% towards future
prospects and applying other parameters as above,
the annual income of the deceased could be placed
at Rs. 60,480/- and multiplying the same by
multiplier 16, the amount comes to Rs. 9,67,680/-.
The expenses towards treatment could be awarded
at Rs. 25,000/-.

5.4. It is conspicuous to notice that the Motor
Accident Tribunal as well as the High Court both

1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Page 7 of 10


erred and misdirected themselves in respect of the
award of amount of consortium. The Tribunal
granted Rs. 4,000/- as lump sum towards non-
pecuniary heads and the High Court enhanced it to
lump sum Rs. 70,000/-. A proper amount under the
head of consortium is required to be awarded.

5.5. The claimants should be further entitled to
consortium amount Rs. 40,000/- each towards filial
consortium, spousal consortium and in respect of
parental consortium of the children, who are 4 in
number. Therefore, Rs. 2,80,000/- would be
awardable to each of the claimants as stated above
towards consortium. Funeral expenses would be
awardable at Rs. 15,000/-.

5.6. The total compensation arrived at as above
would be a just compensation in the facts of the
case. Translated in the tabular form, the total
compensation payable to the claimants would be as
under,

Page 8 of 10

6. In view of above, the claimants are held
entitled to the additional compensation of Rs.
11,34,820/- with interest at 7% from the date of
filing of claim petition till the payment. The
respondent no. 2 insurance company is directed to
deposit the aforesaid additional compensation Rs.
11,34,820/- with interest at 7% within 8 weeks from
today with the Tribunal concerned.

Page 9 of 10


6.1. Above compensation shall be disbursed in
favour of the seven claimants in the same proportion
as directed by the Tribunal, namely out of the total
additional amount awarded except the loss of
consortium, 75% shall go to claimant Nos. 1 to 5
who are the widow and the children – now major in
age in equal proportion and the remainder 25% in
equal proportion shall be disbursed in favour of the
parents who are claimants Nos. 6 and 7. The loss of
consortium shall be disbursed @ Rs. 40,000/- to
each of the claimants. The payment shall be made
after undergoing the process of verification and by
transferring the amount payable to each of the
claimants directly in their respective bank accounts.

7. The judgment and award of the High Court
stand modified accordingly. The present appeal is
allowed in the aforesaid terms.
All the interlocutory applications, if pending,
shall not survive in view of the disposal of the
appeal.

…………………………………..,J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]



…………………………………..,J.
[ N.V. ANJARIA ]
NEW DELHI;
December 5, 2025.
(JS)
Page 10 of 10