Holding

The Court held that the deceased's monthly income should be deemed Rs.15,000 and the interest rate 7.5% per annum, thereby modifying the compensation award.

Summary

The deceased, K.H.M. Shivamurthaiah, died in a motor vehicle accident, leaving behind a family dependent on his earnings from agriculture, milk‑vending and tractor‑hiring. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation based on a notional monthly income of Rs.10,000, which the High Court reduced to Rs.8,000 without adequately considering the evidence of the deceased’s actual earnings. The appellants challenged this reduction, arguing that the deceased’s true monthly income was around Rs.40,000. The Supreme Court examined the depositions and financial records, finding that both the MACT and the High Court had undervalued the income and that a reasonable estimate was Rs.15,000 per month. Consequently, the Court modified the compensation, setting the monthly income at Rs.15,000 and increasing the interest rate to 7.5% per annum, resulting in a total award of Rs.35,66,600. The appeals were partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in fixing the deceased's monthly income at Rs.8,000 for compensation purposes
What is the appropriate assessment of the deceased's monthly income based on the evidence
Whether the interest rate on the compensation should be altered from 6% to 7.5% per annum

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 279, s. 304-A, s. 337, s. 338
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Subjects

Motor Accident claimClaim petitionMonthly IncomeCompensationReduction of compensationFuture prospectsPersonal and living expensesMultiplierCompensation for loss of dependencyLoss of consortiumSources of income

Judgment

[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 & Motor
Accidents Claim Tribunal IX at Harapanahalli (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘MACT’) in MVC No.73 of 2012, whereby the High Court
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded by the MACT, and partly allowed the appeal
filed by the first respondent-Insurance Company.

FACTS IN BRIEF:
3. Mr. K.H.M. Virupakshaiah, the husband of the appellant no.1, son of
appellant no.6 and father of appellants no.2 to 5 met with an accident
on 05.05.2012, unfortunately resulting in his death. On 05.05.2012
at 12:15 PM, the deceased was riding his Bajaj motorcycle along
with a pillion rider near Itagi Village on the Harihar-Hospete road.
When they reached near Talakallu Village cross, they were hit by a
Ford car bearing Registration No.KA36M1979, which was driven by
respondent no.2 and, as claimed, in a rash and negligent manner
with high speed. The Ford car hit the motorcycle of the deceased on
the right side leading to his death. Crime No.24/2012 was registered
66 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

initially under Sections 2791, 3372 and 3383 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and upon the deceased
dying, Section 304-A4 of the IPC was also added. On 07.09.2012, the
appellants filed MVC No.73 of 2012 against the respondents, seeking
compensation of an amount of Rs.77,15,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Seven
Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand). The MACT, by Judgment and Order
dated 10.01.2014, awarded a compensation of Rs.25,49,000/- (Rupees
Twenty-Five Lakhs Forty-Nine Thousand) with 6% interest per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
4. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred Miscellaneous First Appeal
No.6192 of 2014 (MV-D) before the High Court. The respondent-
Insurance Company also filed Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2087
of 2014 (MV-D). The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed
the appellants’/claimants’ appeal and partly allowed the appeal of
the respondent-Insurance Company. The High Court reduced the
compensation of Rs.25,49,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs Forty-
Nine Thousand) to Rs.20,61,320/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Sixty-One
Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty).

SUBMISSION BY THE APPELLANTS:
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased
was aged about 32 years and had an old father, mother, wife, three
minor daughters and one minor son at the time of the accident and
an income of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) per month.
6. It was submitted that the family of the deceased owned 9 Acres 23
Cents of irrigated land on which various varieties of crops and fruits

1 ‘279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.—Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way
in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any
other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.’
2 ‘337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.—Whoever causes hurt to
any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety
of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.’
3 ‘338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.—Whoever causes
grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the
personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.’
4 ‘304-A. Causing death by negligence.—Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash
or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.’
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 67

Shivaleela and Others v.
The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others

like Banana, Chiku, Anjeer, Cotton etc., with the guidance of officers
of the concerned Agricultural Department, was being cultivated from
which a yearly income of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) was
raised and the saving was Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) per
year.5 It was further submitted that the deceased was also doing
milk-vending6 and earned Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) per
month therefrom. Further, it was submitted that the family owned
a tractor-trailer and the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.9,000
(Rupees Nine Thousand) per month on account of hiring/driving of
the tractor-trailer.7
7. It was submitted that the sudden death of the deceased left the
dependants without proper support as he was the main force behind
the family’s agriculture, milk-vending and hiring/driving businesses. It
was pointed out that the wife has to take care of the minor children
and the father is old. It was submitted that though it has come on
record that there was another brother of the deceased, but that could
have lessened the earning of the petitioner by only one-third. It was
submitted that initially the MACT has taken the notional income as
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month without looking into
the documents which were produced by the Bank Manager/PW5
who admitted to advancing a loan of Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees Four
Lakhs Twenty Thousand) for agriculture purpose and the deposition
of the wholesale vendor/PW6 who used to buy the banana crops
grown on the field of the deceased along with a list of sales exhibited
in the proceedings showing that they varied from Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs) a year to almost more than Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs) in a period of only three months. Thus, it was
submitted that the monthly income would be Rs.40,000/- (Rupees
Forty Thousand), which had been drastically reduced by the MACT
to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) without giving any reason(s)
to justify the same.
8. It was submitted that the High Court had further caused injustice by
reducing the monthly income to Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand),
without taking into consideration the relevant factors which were

5 Deposition of PW1.
6 Deposition of PW3.
7 Deposition of PW4.
68 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

required to be taken note of. Learned counsel prayed for this Court’s
intervention and for justice to be served.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT:
9. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted
that the deceased was one of the two sons of the loan-holder and thus
the income had to be divided among the three, as such Rs.8,000/-
(Rupees Eight Thousand) per month was a reasonable and correct
assessment of the deceased’s earning by the High Court. It was
further submitted that the MACT considered the evidence and the
High Court has also taken note of it. Learned counsel urged that the
High Court has been more practical in assessing the income, which
cannot be faulted. Hence, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of
the appeals.

ANALYSIS, REASONING & CONCLUSION:
10. Having given our anxious thought, this Court finds that both the
MACT as also the High Court had not correctly approached the
issue. When evidence was there before the MACT with regard to
loan being advanced of Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty
Thousand) and that of PW6, who purchased the banana crops from
the deceased, stating that the latest transaction amounted to more
than Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs) within a few months, which
could not be controverted by the respondent-Insurance Company,
coupled with the fact that there was a tractor in the name of the
family and also evidence of PW3 to the effect that the deceased
used to supply milk, which is also reflected in the passbook of the
Milk Producer’s Co-operative Society showing payments being made
to the mother of the deceased of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand)
per month, the MACT and the High Court erred in assessing the
income on the lower side.
11. 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 referred to supra. Going by the cumulative
income on all three sources, it is difficult to accept that the income of
the deceased was restricted to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
per month as decided by the MACT, much less Rs.8,000/- (Rupees
Eight Thousand) per month as decided by the High Court. The fact
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 69

Shivaleela and Others v.
The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others

that the father and the mother of the deceased were also claimants
before the MACT and the mother having passed away during the
interregnum itself shows that they were advanced in age and thus,
the deceased, but obviously, would be presumed to have carried out
the major responsibility as is done in such joint family, especially
since the businesses of agriculturist, hiring/driving and milk-vending
are of a physical and strenuous nature, which cannot be seriously
undertaken ordinarily for long periods of time by elder persons.
12. Upon a conspectus of the material on record especially apropos the
deceased’s income, with the MACT, it is clear that the fixation of
monthly income ultimately as Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand)
per month by the High Court cannot be justified in any manner. At
the same time, even the claim of the appellants of the income being
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) per month is also not borne out.
13. Thus, on an overall circumspection of the entire facts and
circumstances of the cases and material on record, we opine that it
may be reasonably assumed that the deceased was having a monthly
income of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) per month. The
compensation awarded by the High Court under the other heads, being
in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the decisions
in Smt. Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6
SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v Pranay Sethi,
(2017) 16 SCC 680, does not require any interference. In K Ramya
v National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, after
taking note of, inter alia, Ningamma v United India Insurance Co.
Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, the Court held that the ‘… Motor Vehicles
Act of 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide
compensation as per the contemporaneous position of an individual
which is essentially forward-looking. Unlike tortious liability, which
is chiefly concerned with making up for the past and reinstating a
claimant to his original position, the compensation under the Act is
concerned with providing stability and continuity in peoples’ lives in
the future. …’ The present coram has respectfully restated the said
observations in S Vishnu Ganga v Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 182.
14. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is modified to the extent that the
monthly income of the deceased would be taken as Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) per month instead of Rs.8,000/-(Rupees
70 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Eight Thousand) per month. Further, the rate of interest shall be 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation,
instead of 6% per annum. Thus, the compensation will be as follows:

S. No. Head of Compensation Compensation
awarded
1. Income Rs.15,000
2. 40% addition towards future Rs.15,000 + Rs.6,000 =
prospects Rs.21,000
3. 1/5th deduction towards personal Rs.21,000 - Rs.4,200 =
and living expenses Rs.16,800
4. Multiplier 16
5. Compensation for loss of Rs.16,800 x 12 x 16 =
dependency Rs.32,25,600
6. Conventional Heads Rs.33,000
i) Funeral expenses
ii) Loss of estate
7. Loss of Consortium Rs.3,08,000
8. Total Compensation Rs.35,66,600
15. Accordingly, the appeals stand partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
16. Parties to bear their own costs.
17. I.A. No.65015/2024 seeking permission to file additional documents
is allowed; permission as prayed for is granted. I.A. No.65016/2024
[Exemption from filing Official Translation] is dismissed as infructuous.

Result of the case: Appeals partly allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan