Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Sushila vs Sudhakar on 10 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ……………. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 21717 OF 2025)
SUSHILA & ORS. ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SUDHAKAR & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1) Leave Granted. 2) The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-Claimant
challenging the order dated 13.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to as
“Impugned Order”) passed in M.F.A. No. 101451 of 2016 (MV-D) by
the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (hereinafter referred to
as “the High Court”) wherein the High Court partly allowed the
appeal, and modified the judgment and Award dated 27.04.2015
passed by the III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge and MACT, Belagavi (hereinafter
referred to as “Tribunal”) in M.V.C. No. 1514 of 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as “Award”), by enhancing the compensation awarded to
the Claimant by ₹2,68,476/-, thereby granting the total compensation
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KRITIKA TIWARI
Date: 2026.04.07
16:31:33 IST
of ₹14,05,942/- as against ₹11,37,466/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Reason:
1
FACTUAL MATRIX
3) The deceased, Balakrishna Yallappa Hosmani, aged 59 years was
working in the Railway Department, and on 06.01.2013 at around
09.15 pm while he was proceeding on his bicycle on Sangli-Miraj Road
near S.R. Petrol Pump, rider of a motor bike bearing Regn. No. MH
10/BC- 5380 owned by Respondent No. 1 came from behind in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed into the bicycle of the deceased. As
a result, the deceased suffered injuries and was admitted in Miraj
Government Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on
07.01.2013.
4) The Appellants herein who are the claimants (widow and children of
the deceased respectively) filed the claim petition before the Tribunal
claiming a compensation of ₹36,16,264/-. In the claim petition it was
alleged that the deceased was earning ₹25,507/- per month from his
employment and the Appellants were fully dependent on him.
AWARD PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL
5) The Tribunal considered the submissions advanced by both the
parties and came to a conclusion that the accident took place due to
rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by Respondent No. 1.
Coming to the question of compensation, the Tribunal relied upon the
statement of PW1 (Appellant No. 1 herein being the wife of the
2
deceased) and the pay slip of the deceased which showed the gross
salary of the deceased to be ₹31,893/- per month. The Tribunal
deducted an amount of ₹6,478/- from the gross salary towards
the festival advance and D.A. arrears taken by the deceased. Thus, the
Tribunal determined the salary of the deceased to be ₹25,415/- per
month. The Tribunal also made a deduction of 50% from the salary of
the deceased since he had only six (6) months of service left, while
relying upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sri Narasubai
Joshi and Others, reported in 2014 (3) Kant LJ 258. Thus, the
Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as ₹12,707/- per
month. From the said income, a further deduction of 1/3rd was made
on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the net
income of the deceased for the computation of the multiplicand was
determined to be ₹8,472/- per month.
6) The deceased was aged 59 years at the time of the incident and
thus, while applying the principles laid down in the case of Sarla
Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.,
reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 9
to calculate the loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded
compensation under the conventional non-pecuniary heads, and the
3
total compensation awarded to the Appellants by the Tribunal was as
follows:
Heads Compensation Awarded
Loss of Dependency ₹9,14,976 (₹8472 ✕ 12 ✕ 9)
Funeral Expenses ₹25,000
Loss to the Estate ₹10,000
Towards Consortium ₹25,000
Loss of Love and Affection ₹10,000
Loss of Six Months Salary ₹1,52,490
TOTAL ₹11,37,466/-
7) The Tribunal further held that since Appellants Nos. 2-4 were not
dependent on the deceased, as Appellant No. 2, who is the son of the
deceased, aged 30 years is already married. Further, Appellants Nos. 3
and 4, being the married daughters of the deceased, were also not
dependent on the deceased. However, the Tribunal awarded them 10%
of the amount collectively on account of loss of love and affection for
their father. The whole of the remaining amount was to go to the
Appellant No. 1 herein.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT
8) Aggrieved, the Appellants preferred Miscellaneous First Appeal
No. 101451 of 2016 (MV-D) before the High Court seeking
4
enhancement of compensation on the ground that the income so
assessed by the Tribunal is incorrect and there is no addition on
account of future prospects. The High Court in the impugned
Judgment, taking the gross salary of the deceased as considered by
the Tribunal at ₹25,415/- per month, and relying on the principles
laid down in the judgment of this court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680,
added 10% to the income of deceased as future prospects, which
brought the salary to ₹27,957/- per month. The High Court upheld
the 50% deductions made by the Tribunal as the deceased had only 6
months of service left, which comes to ₹13,979/- per month and the
1/3rd deduction made for personal and living expenses, which comes
to ₹4,659/- making the net income of the deceased to be ₹9,319/- per
month. The High Court also upheld the multiplier of 9 applied by the
Tribunal, making the loss of dependency at ₹10,06,452/- ( ₹9319 x 12
months x 9) and ₹1,52,490/- awarded towards loss of 6 months
salary.
9) Further, the High Court granted ₹52,000/- to each Appellant as
loss of consortium, considering the base amount as ₹40,000/- and
enhancement of 10% every year i.e. 30% relying on Pranay Sethi
(supra). The High Court also awarded ₹19,500/- for the loss of estate
5
and ₹19,500/- for the transportation of the dead body and funeral
expenses, with both figures reflecting a 30% enhancement over the
base amount of ₹15,000/-. Thus, the total compensation awarded by
the High Court to Appellants was as follows:
Heads Compensation
Awarded
Loss of Dependency ₹10,06,452
(₹9319 x 12 x 9)
Loss to the Estate ₹19,500
Towards Consortium to ₹2,08,000
Appellants
Transportation of Dead Body & ₹19,500
Funeral expenses
Loss of Six Months Salary ₹1,52,490
TOTAL ₹14,05,942/-
10) The High Court enhanced the compensation from ₹11,37,466/- as
awarded by the Tribunal to ₹14,05,942/-, thereby enhancing the
compensation by ₹2,68,476/- together with interest @6% per annum
from the date of the petition till realization. In addition to this, the
High Court held that both the Respondents are jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation amount but directed Respondent No. 2
to deposit the compensation amount within 6 weeks from the receipt
of a certified copy of this impugned judgment.
6
11) Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the claimants have filed the
present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
12) Notice of the appeal was issued, however, no one appeared for
Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 duly appeared and marked their
presence.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
13) The learned counsel for the Appellants has argued that the High
Court had erroneously deducted 50% from the deceased’s salary
because only six months of service remained which is contrary to the
law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra). It was submitted that
there cannot be “split income” for the pre-retirement and post-
retirement period, and only the annual income computed as per the
last drawn salary must be taken.
14) Further, it was also contended that the High Court had erred in
making a 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses, which should
have been 1/4th as per the settled law. On the aspect of future
prospects, it was held that the High Court had erroneously granted
only 10% addition towards future income, however, since the deceased
was a permanent government employee aged between 50-60 years, the
future prospects should be added @15% as per the ratio laid down in
Pranay Sethi’s case (supra).
7
15) Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 argued
that the deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased was made in
line with the judgment of the division bench of the High Court in
Narasubhai Joshi’s case (supra) and the Tribunal, as well as the
High Court, have rightly followed the decision.
16) It was further contended by the learned counsel for Respondent No.
2 that the deduction towards personal expenses was rightly assessed
by the High Court as 1/3rd, as the Appellants No. 2-4 herein are the
son (aged 30 years) and two married daughters of the deceased, who
cannot be regarded as the dependents.
17) It was also submitted that the claimants had raised the grievance of
the addition of 10% future prospects before the High Court, and the
same was duly addressed by the High Court. The claimants cannot, at
this stage, contend that 15% ought to have been added.
18) Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar and the
materials on the record, the controversy in the present appeal can be
crystalized on two counts:
1. Regarding the assessment of the income of the deceased and
whether the deduction made by the Tribunal as well as the High
Court towards the duration of the service of the deceased while
computing his notional income is justified or not?
8
2. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just and
proper?
ANALYSIS
19) In our considered opinion, although the High Court had enhanced
the compensation, it was on the lower side. The cardinal principle of
awarding compensation in the cases of motor accidents is to provide a
“just compensation” to the victim and/or the distressed dependents of
the deceased. The term “just” implies that the compensation must be
fair, reasonable, and equitable as per the applicable legal standards.
The compensation should not be too meagre, nor should it be
excessive. The sole foundation of providing monetary compensation is
to make efforts to put the dependents of the deceased at the same
financial position that they were in, had the accident not occurred.
[See also: Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and
another, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65; National Insurance Co. Ltd.
vs. Indira Srivastava & Ors, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 763; and
Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another,
reported in (2003) 7 SCC 197]
20) Thus in the light of the settled principle that the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as “M.V. Act”) is a beneficial legislation
and the compensation should be just and equitable, let us deal with
9
the issues for determination in the present appeal.
ISSUE I
21) This Court in the judgment of Helen C. Rebello and others vs.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another,
reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90, while dealing with the question of
ascertaining the permissible deductions that could be made while
awarding compensation in Motor Accident Claim cases, held that the
general principles of common law to estimate damages cannot be
invoked for calculating the compensation under the M. V. Act.
Recently, in the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Kamlesh and Others, reported in 2025 INSC 724, this Court while
relying upon the judgment in the case of Helen C. Rebello (supra)
opined that the compensation under the M.V. Act takes into account
the component of loss of income which has a direct reference to the
“pay and wages” that the deceased would otherwise be entitled to had
the accident not occurred or the deceased survived such an accident.
22) In the case at hand before us, both the Tribunal as well as the High
Court had made a deduction of 50% from the salary of the deceased
on account the fact that only 6 months of service of the deceased was
10
remaining. In our considered opinion, the Courts below have erred in
coming to such an unreasonable conclusion. In the light of the
authorities cited above, it is clear that any deduction which is not
related to the accident, is impermissible in law. Additionally, as per
settled law in the case of Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the
multiplicand is always determined on the basis of the “annual” income
of the deceased so as to ensure uniformity and consistency in the
calculation of motor accident claim cases. The fact that the deceased
had only six months of service left does not cast any aspersion on the
fact that had the accident not occurred, the deceased would have been
in service and earn commensurate to the last drawn income before the
death. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased would be
calculated on the basis of his monthly last drawn salary.
23) Thus, while deciding Issue No. 1, we are of the opinion that no
deduction ought to have been made from the salary of the deceased on
account of duration of service left. The Tribunal rightly assessed the
net salary of the deceased to be ₹25,415/- per month and the same
would be considered for the computation of loss of income.
ISSUE II
24) It is not disputed that the deceased was aged 59 years at the time of
the incident. Further, it is also evident from the claim petition and as
11
rightly held by the Court below, the Appellant No. 1, being the wife of
the deceased is the only dependent. The other claimants who are son
and daughter of the deceased are not depending upon the deceased.
25) Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the income of the deceased
is to be taken as ₹25,415/- per month, which would make his annual
income amount to ₹3,04,980. As far as the future prospects are
concerned, the High Court erroneously ascertained them to be 10%.
As per the law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), an addition
of 15% towards future prospects was mandated while computation of
the compensation of the deceased who fall in the category of salaried
permanent employees within the age bracket of 50-60 years. In the
present case, the deceased was working in railways as a permanent
employee and was 59 years of age, therefore, the addition towards
future prospects should be @15%.
26) At this stage, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 had
raised the contention that the claimants had earlier claimed future
prospects @10%, which was already awarded by the High Court and
therefore, no further enhancement on this ground was to be made.
This contention of the learned counsel does not hold ground as it is a
settled proposition of law that the compensation claimed before the
Tribunal or the High Court as the case may be does not bar the
12
Tribunal or the Court to award more than what is claimed, provided
that it is found to be just and reasonable. This position of law was
upheld by this Court in the judgment of Chandramani Nanda v.
Sarat Chandra Swain and Another, reported in 2024 INSC 777.
27) Now that the annual income has been computed at ₹3,04,980/-,
and after adding future prospects @15%, the gross annual income
becomes ₹3,50,727/- Out of the said annual income, 1/3rd, i.e.
₹1,16,909/- would be deductible towards the personal expenses of the
deceased, and as per the law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case
(supra), the applicable multiplier ought to be 9. In terms of the
aforesaid, the loss of dependency would be calculated as follows:
(₹3,50,727 – ₹1,16,909) x 9 = ₹21,04,362/-.
28) The compensation awarded by the High Court under the head of
loss of earning of six months would now be not awarded, since the
computation of the salary of the deceased has now been made on the
basis of his annual income.
29) We are of the view that apart from the above computation regarding
the income, loss of dependency and future prospects, the
compensation awarded by the High Court under the non-pecuniary
heads and the liability of the Respondents to pay the compensation
does not call for interference. In light of the above discussion, the
13
claimants are entitled to compensation as follows:
Heads Compensation Awarded
(₹)
Loss of Dependency 21,04,362/-
Loss to the Estate 19,500/-
Towards Consortium to 2,08,000/-
Appellants
Transportation of Dead Body & 19,500/-
Funeral expenses
TOTAL 23,51,362/-
30) If any amount on account of compensation as awarded by the
MACT, since enhanced by the High Court has been paid to the
claimants, the insurer is directed to pay the balance amount of
compensation within a period of twelve weeks from the date of this
order.
31) On the said amount, the claimants shall be entitled to interest @6%
per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the payment of the
amount. For payment of amount to the claimants, the direction as
issued by this Court in Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal and
Others, reported in (2025) 9 SCC 359: 2025 INSC 361, be kept in
view. For quick reference, the directions are stated as below:
i. Tribunals should collect claimants’ bank account details to
14
enable direct transfer of compensation via the award and incase, the claimants do not have an account, they must open
one.
ii. The account must be in the claimant’s name (or through a
guardian for a minor) and cannot be joint with a non-family
member. Transferring funds to the provided account will be
treated as full satisfaction of the award.
iii. If the award mandates a fixed deposit for a portion of the
compensation, the bank receiving the transfer is responsible
for ensuring this is done and must report compliance to the
Tribunal.
32) The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
33) Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………., J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
………………………., J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 10, 2026.
15
ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.14 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.21717/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-02-2025
in MFA No. 101451/2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka
Circuit Bench at Dharwad]SUSHILA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SUDHAKAR & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 10-03-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOIFor Petitioner(s) :Mr. Agam Sharma, AOR
Ms. Archi Aggarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR
Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. P Srinivasan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the
signed order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(KRITIKA TIWARI) (AKSHAY KUMAR BHORIA)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
{signed order is placed on file}
16