Facts
The claimants— the deceased’s husband and two minor children—sought compensation for her death in a road accident involving a KSRTC bus.
Source reference: pp. 2–5The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim, assessed compensation at Rs. 15,38,012, attributed 20% contributory negligence to the deceased, deducted Rs. 15,000 interim compensation, and awarded Rs. 12,15,409 with interest at 6% per annum.
Source reference: pp. 2–5The claimants appealed, challenging the contributory-negligence finding and seeking enhanced compensation, including compensation for the deceased’s domestic care in addition to her earnings.
Source reference: pp. 2–5Issues
Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 20% contributory negligence to the deceased
Source reference: p. 6Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
Source reference: p. 6Law Applied
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for an appeal to the High Court against an award of the Claims Tribunal.
Source reference: p. 2In Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram & Ors. v. Surjeet & Ors., 2026 INSC 634, the Supreme Court held that, where a deceased homemaker was also part of the workforce, a composite sum of Rs. 30,000 per month for loss of domestic care is to be awarded in addition to the deceased’s proved monthly income, where the relevant forms of domestic support are established.
Source reference: pp. 5, 9–10The judgment also applied the principles of dependency calculation, including deduction for personal expenses, the applicable multiplier, and future prospects.
Source reference: p. 10Reasoning
The Court upheld the 20% contributory-negligence finding because the deceased was crossing near the road median, which it considered an inappropriate place for pedestrians to cross.
Source reference: p. 7It concluded that the Tribunal had properly apportioned negligence, notwithstanding the absence of brake or tyre marks.
Source reference: p. 7On quantum, the Court recalculated the deceased’s net monthly salary as Rs. 14,671 and found that she had also provided domestic, maternal, and spousal support.
Source reference: pp. 8–12Applying Shishu Pal, it added Rs. 30,000 per month for domestic care to her earnings, then applied a one-third deduction for personal expenses, a multiplier of 17, and 40% future prospects.
Source reference: pp. 8–12It also awarded consortium to each claimant, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.
Source reference: pp. 8–12After deducting 20% for contributory negligence and the interim payment, the Court calculated total compensation payable at Rs. 69,09,286.
Source reference: p. 12Holding
The appeal was allowed in part.
The Court affirmed the deceased’s 20% contributory negligence and enhanced the compensation, directing payment with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.
Source reference: pp. 12–13It apportioned the claimants’ shares in the ratio of 50:25:25 and directed that the minors’ shares be kept in fixed deposits until majority; 50% of the first claimant’s share was to be released, with the remainder placed in a five-year fixed deposit.
Source reference: pp. 12–13The operative order specifies enhanced compensation of Rs. 56,93,877; paragraph 14 states Rs. 56,93,886, an apparent discrepancy in the judgment.
Source reference: pp. 12–13Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Motor Vehicles Act, 19881
Original Court PDF
SMT. PRAKASH D MvsTHE MANAGING DIRECTOR (KSRTC)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
