Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Rasmita Sahu vs The Divisional Manager on 20 May, 2025
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C)No..........5252/2023)
RASMITA SAHU & ORS. … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
& ANR. … RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
Time taken for Time taken for Time taken
disposal of the claim disposal of the for disposal
petition by MACT appeal by the of the appeal
High Court in this Court
1 year 5 5 years 4 months 1 year 10
months months
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 10th November
2022, passed in MACA No.600/2017 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, which,
in turn, was preferred against the order dated 3 rd March 2017 in MAC No.45 of 2015
passed by the District Judge – cum – Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kandhamal,
Phulbani.
3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 6th June 2015, the deceased,
Signature Not Verified
namely, Sarban Kumar Sahu, aged 40 years, was riding as a pillion rider on
Digitally signed by
NISHA KHULBEY
Date: 2025.05.30
16:43:05 IST
motorcycle bearing registration No. OD-12-6286. At about 5.30 p.m., upon reaching
Reason:
Gandapada-Bapalamendi road, the offending vehicle (truck) bearing registration no.
OD-15-B-6887, driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle
2of the deceased. Owing to the said impact, the deceased was thrown off the
motorcycle, whereupon the offending vehicle ran over him. Consequently, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. In
connection with this incident, FIR No. 48/2015 was registered against the driver of the
offending vehicle under Sections 279 and 304A Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. A claim petition was instituted on behalf of claimant-appellants being the legal
representatives of the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988,
before the Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-, submitting
therein that the deceased was earning up to Rs. 55,000/- per month by working as a
Manager under Special Class Contractor Narayan Pradhan. Also, he was the sole
breadwinner of the family.
5. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.68,00,000/- to the claimant-appellants
vide award dated 3rd March 2017, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition. The Tribunal upon considering the nature of the
deceased’s occupation, age and number of dependants, assessed the monthly income
of the deceased at Rs. 35,000/-. An addition of 50% was made towards future
prospects and the multiplier of 15 was applied. A deduction of 2/3 rd of his income was
made towards personal and living expenses. The Insurance Company – Respondent
No. 1, was held liable to indemnify the claimant-appellants, there being no breach of
the terms and conditions of the insurance policies.
6. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
Respondent, Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court on the ground
that assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.35,000/- per month was highly
excessive, as such the same needs to be reduced.
7. The High Court, vide the impugned judgement, allowed the appeal and reduced
the compensation amount to Rs.29,85,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. The
income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 15,000/- per month, in the absence of any
credible evidence on record, and upon consideration of the place of residence and
place of employment of the deceased. Additionally, the Court awarded 40%
3
enhancement towards future prospects, applied the same multiplier as adopted by the
Tribunal and effected a deduction of 1/4th of the amount towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased.
8. Dissatisfied, the claimant-appellants preferred the present appeal. The
significant point raised before us is that the High Court incorrectly assessed the
earning of the deceased to be Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of accident, whereas it
should have been Rs.35,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, based on the material
documents and evidence placed on record.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. We are inclined to interfere with the findings arrived at by the High Court in
assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-.
11. In the present case, from the bare perusal of the record, it is evident the
claimant-appellant produced a salary certificate of the deceased which is Ext. 5 before
the Tribunal, and the same was not refuted by the Respondents. This Court, in the case
of Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & Ors. 1, had expounded that oral and documentary
evidence submitted by the Claimant-appellant, having been duly placed on record,
assumes greater evidentiary value, especially when the respondents failed to adduce
any rebuttal evidence.
12. Keeping in view the above exposition of law, in our view, the High Court has
committed an error in not taking into consideration the salary certificate, depicting the
correct monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to
the contrary, to disapprove the income of the deceased, such uncontroverted
documentary evidence has to be relied upon by this Court. Therefore, in the interest of
justice, we deem it appropriate to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.35,000/-
per month.
13. In our considered view, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, we
concur with the view taken by the High Court regarding the 40% addition towards
future prospects, applying the multiplier of 15 and making deduction of 1/4 th towards
1 (2014) 1 SCC 244
4
loss of personal and living expenses, the same being in accordance with law.
Additionally, we are inclined to increase the amounts towards conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses by 10%, in line with
the settled principle expounded in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi2 that
such amount should be revised in every three years.
14. As a result of the discussion above, the compensation payable to the claimant-
appellant in accordance with the law would work out as follows:
CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION
Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with:
Monthly Income Rs.35,000/-
Yearly Income Rs.4,20,000/-
Future Prospects 4,20,000 + 1,68,000 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
(40%) = Rs.5,88,000/- Sethi
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Deduction (1/4) 5,88,000 – 1,47,000
Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4
= Rs.4,41,000/-
Multiplier (15) 4,41,000 X 15
= Rs.66,15,000/-
Loss of Income of the
Rs.66,15,000/-
Deceased
Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi
[with 10% increase every (2017) 16 SCC 680
3 years from 2017] Para 59.8
Loss of Funeral Rs.18,150/-
Expenses
[with 10% increase every
3 years from 2017]
Loss of Consortium 48,400 X 5 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder
Kaur,
[with 10% increase every (2021) 11 SCC 780
3 years from 2017] Para 37.12
Rajwati alias Rajjo and Ors v. United India
2 (2017) 16 SCC 680
5= Rs.2,42,000/- Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.
2022 SCC Online SC 1699
Para 34
Sadhana Tomar & Ors. v. Ashok
Khushwaha & Ors.
2025 SCC Online SC 554
Para 17
Rs.68,93,300/-
Total Rs.68,93,300/-
Thus, the difference in compensation is as under:
MACT High Court This Court
Rs.68,00,000/- Rs.29,85,000/- Rs.68,93,300/-
15. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned Award 3rd
March 2017 in MAC No.45 of 2015 passed by the District Judge – cum – Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kandhamal, Phulbani, as modified by the High Court of
Orissa at Cuttack, vide the impugned order dated 10th November 2022, passed in
MACA No.600/2017 stands modified accordingly. Interest on the amount is to be paid
as awarded by the Tribunal i.e., 9% per annum from the date of filling of the original
petition.
16. The amount be directly remitted into the bank account of the claimant-appellants.
The particulars of the bank account are to be immediately supplied by the learned
counsel for the appellant to the learned counsel for the respondent. The amount be
remitted positively within a period of four weeks thereafter.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
……………….………J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi
20th May, 2025
6
ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.14 SECTION XI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5252/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-11-2022
in MACA No. 600/2017 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack]
RASMITA SAHU & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 20-05-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTAFor Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Sudhansu Palo, AOR
Mr. Ravin Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Prasant Varma, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Palo, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Palo, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, AOR
Ms. Jyoti Kaushik, Adv.UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(NISHA KHULBEY) (ANU BHALLA)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
(signed order is placed on the file)