LexSHIVALEELA AND OTHERS 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 R1: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. R2: SRI. GIRISH B. R3: DR. BASAVARAJA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 63 : 2025 INSC 357 Shivaleela and Others A1: Shivaleela A2: Kumari Kavya A3: Kumari Purnima A4: Kumari Shravya A5: Master Veeresh A6: K. H. M. Shivamurthaiah v. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others R1: The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. R2: Sri. Girish B. R3: Dr. Basavaraja (Civil Appeal No(s). 3840-3841 of 2025) 17 March 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The victim died in an accident. The appellants filed claim petition for compensation. In the Miscellaneous First Appeal, the High Court fixed the monthly income of deceased as Rs.8000/- per month. Whether the High Court was justified in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 8000/- per month in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Victim met with an accident and died – Claim petition was filed by appellants – The MACT, by Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2014, awarded a compensation of Rs.25,49,000/- with 6% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization – The High Court reduced the compensation of Rs.25,49,000/- to Rs.20,61,320/- – While calculating the compensation, the MACT had taken the notional income of deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month, which was further reduced by the High Court to Rs.8000/- – Correctness: * Author 64 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Held: Both the MACT as also the High Court had not correctly approached the issue – The MACT and the High Court erred in assessing the income on the lower side – Bearing in mind the evidences adduced by the depositions of PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 in totality, it is clear that the deceased had a major role in the businesses – Going by the cumulative income on all the sources (agriculturist, hiring/driving and milk-vending), it is difficult to accept that the income of the deceased was restricted to Rs.10,000/- per month as decided by the MACT, much less Rs.8,000/- per month as decided by the High Court – Thus, on an overall circumspection of the entire facts and circumstances of the cases and material on record, it may be reasonably assumed that the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- per month – Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the monthly income of the deceased would be taken as Rs.15,000/- per month instead of Rs.8,000/- per month – Further, the rate of interest shall be 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation, instead of 6% p.a. – Thus, the total compensation will be as Rs.35,66,600/-. [Paras 10, 11, 13, 14] Case Law Cited Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009] 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 6 SCC 121; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680; K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338; Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2009] 8 SCR 683 : (2009) 13 SCC 710; S Vishnu Ganga v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 182 – referred to. List of Keywords Motor Accident claim; Claim petition; Monthly Income; Compensation; Reduction of compensation; Future prospects; Personal and living expenses; Multiplier; Compensation for loss of dependency; Loss of consortium; Sources of income. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3840-3841 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2023 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in MFA No. 6192 and 2087 of 2014 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 65 Shivaleela and Others v. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Ashwin V. Kotemath, Harisha S.R. Advs. for the Respondents: S L Gupta, Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, Ashutosh Sharma, Ms. Gunjan Sharma, Himanshu Gandhi, Anil Kumar Thakur, Ms. Rajani Shahi, Sanjeev Kumar, Ms. Drishti Jindal, Mata Prasad Singh, Narender Deo Arya, Rajesh Ranjan Kumar, R.S. Misra. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Leave granted. 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 &
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.