LexMAYA SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 602 : 2025 INSC 161 Maya Singh and Others v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (Civil Appeal No. 2203 of 2025) 07 February 2025 [J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The instant appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the High Court in a motor accident case. The Tribunal assessed the compensation at ₹28,66,994/-. The High Court applied the Split method for calculation of dependency and reduced the compensation to ₹19,66,833/-. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – The victim-deceased was knocked down by the offending bus – Victim died on spot – Deceased was 57-58 years of age and was employed as a phone mechanic with BSNL – The Tribunal assessed the compensation at ₹28,66,994/- – However, the High Court reduced the compensation under the head of loss of dependency by bifurcating the period for which the deceased would have remained in service and post-retirement – The total amount of compensation assessed by the High Court was ₹19,66,833/- – Correctness: Held: The Tribunal assessed the compensation on account of loss of income taking the annual income of the deceased at ₹4,57,000/- by applying a multiplier of 9 and applying a cut of one-third towards personal expenses – The High Court applied a split method – The High Court has erred in not considering the principles laid down in the cases of Sarla Verma v. DTC and Sumathi v. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. – Normally Courts and Tribunals have to apply the multiplier as per the judgement of this Court in Sarla Verma – Any deviation from the same warrants special reasons to be recorded – In the case in hand, neither any special reason has been recorded by the High Court while applying the split method * Author [2025] 2 S.C.R. 603 Maya Singh and Others v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others nor there is one in the facts of the case – The deceased was a technically qualified person and healthy – He would have continued working even after retirement – Considering the aforesaid factual aspects and position of law, the compensation on account of loss of income while applying the multiplier of 9 by the Tribunal without applying the split method is the correct calculation on that account – Moreover, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had failed to award future prospects while calculating the compensation – Considering the age of the deceased, the appellant would be entitled to future prospects @ 15% – On account of loss of estate and funeral expenses, the amount of ₹15,000/- each awarded by the High Court is as per law – As far as loss of consortium is concerned, there are three claimants, namely, the widow, one son and one daughter – They would be entitled to compensation on account of loss of consortium @ ₹40,000/- each – Thus, the award of the Tribunal is modified – The appellants are held to be entitled to total compensation of ₹33,03,000/-. [Paras 11.1, 11.2, 11.5, 12. 14] Case Law Cited Sarla Verma v. DTC 2009 INSC 506 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098: (2009) 6 SCC 121, Sumathi v. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7729 OF 2021 decided on 15.12.2021 : 2022 ACJ 1315, Puttamma & Ors. v. K. L. Narayana Reddy & Anr. 2013 INSC 814 : [2013] 16 SCR 831 : (2013) 15 SCC 45 – relied on. National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 INSC 1068 : [2017] 13 SCR 100:(2017) 16 SCC 680 – referred to. List of Keywords Motor Vehicle Accident Claim; Compensation; Application of Multiplier; Split Method; Loss of estate; Funeral expenses; Loss of consortium; Loss of income; Future prospects. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2203 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2019 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in MA No. 568 of 2015 604 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Dinesh Kr Tiwary, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Chandan Kr, Ms. Anita Pandey, Rakesh Ranjan, Ms. Jaya Kumari, Advs. for the Appellants. Sumit Sinha, Mrs. Anjali Rajput, Somanatha Padhan, Ashok Anand, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 31.07.20191 passed by the High Court2 in a motor accident case.3 The Tribunal4 awarded compensation of ₹28,66,994/- under various heads along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.