SRI MALAKAPPA & ORS.versusTHE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.

                 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2058 : 2025 INSC 590

                       Sri Malakappa & Ors.
                                v.
                     The IFFCO TOKIO General
                 Insurance Company Limited & Anr.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 5666 of 2025)
                                29 April 2025
           [Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by
       the High Court relating to compensation awarded for the death of
       wife-pillion rider in an accident.

                                 Headnotes†
       Motor vehicles – Fatal accident – Compensation – Death of wife-
       pillion rider in an accident – Appellants, husband and children
       of the deceased, sought compensation – Tribunal awarded
       compensation of Rs.18,81,966/- – Deduction applicable
       for personal expenses was fixed at 1/3rd, considering the
       dependent family comprising of the deceased and only two
       children – Insurance company filed appeal against the award –
       High Court deleted 50% as future prospects as were accepted
       by the tribunal and increased income – Correctness:
       Held: Courts should award just compensation – No reason to differ
       from High Court’s finding that accident had been caused due to
       rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bike whose owner
       is indemnified by the insurance company – Since no employment
       specified of the husband, he was partially dependent on the
       income of the deceased, hence the family to be comprised of 4 and
       deduction for personal expenses would be at 1/4th – No reason
       to increase the income which was enhanced by the High Court
       from Rs 7000/- to Rs. 8000/- – Claimant entitled to 40% for future
       prospects – Medical expenses as accepted by the tribunal based
       on bills to be granted – In addition to spousal loss of consortium
       children too entitled at the rate of ₹40,000/- – No scope for loss
       of love and affection, since already loss of consortium has been
       awarded – What has been enhanced is only the pro-rata amounts

* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                            2059

                     Sri Malakappa & Ors. v.
     The IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited & Anr.

     under the conventional heads, while the percentage adopted for
     future prospects and the deduction for personal expenses have
     been reduced – Modified award of Rs.17,84,766/- by this Court,
     does not exceed that granted by the tribunal. [Paras 7-10]

                              Case Law Cited
     National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017] 13 SCR 100 :
     (2017) 16 SCC 680; New India Assurance Company v. Somwati
     [2020] 10 SCR 1132 : (2020) 9 SCC 644 – referred to.

                             List of Keywords
     Motor accident; Death; Compensation; Multiplier; Deduction for
     personal expenses; Expenses for funeral and transportation; Loss
     of love and affection; Loss of consortium; Loss of future prospects;
     Just compensation; Death of a pillion rider in an accident; Rash
     and negligent driving; Medical expenses; Pro-rata amounts.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5666 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2017 of the High Court
     of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in MFA No. 101074 of 2017

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Chinmay Deshpande, V.N. Raghupathy.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Suyash Vyas, Gopal Singh.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1.   Leave granted.
2.   The appellants who were the claimants before the Tribunal sought
     compensation for the death of the wife of the first appellant whose
     children are second and third appellants. The claim arose from the
2060                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     death of a pillion rider in an accident which occurred on 22.02.2015, as
     a result of which the pillion rider succumbed to the injuries sustained
     in the accident; two days later i.e. on 24.02.2015.
3.   Before the Tribunal, the claimants asserted an income of ₹15,000/-
     for the deceased, while she was alive, claiming her to be a
     Coolie. The Tribunal considering the unspecified work in which
     the deceased was employed, took the income at ₹7,000 and
     reduced 1/3rd of the income determined for personal expenses;
     finding the husband to be not dependent on the deceased, in
     which event the dependant family consisted of the deceased and
     her two children. Fifty percent was added for future prospects and
     considering the age of the deceased, i.e. 35 years, a multiplier of
     16 was applied, determining the total loss at ₹13,44,000/-. On other
     heads also compensation was awarded totalling ₹18,81,966/- as
     shown hereinbelow:

        Nos.   Particulars                              Amount in ₹
        1      Loss of dependency                       13,44,000/-
        2      Loss of consortium                       50,000/-
        3      Medical expenses                         21,966/-
        4      Transport and funeral expenses           30,000/-
        5      Loss of estate                           3,36,000/-
        6      Love and affection                       1,00,000/-
               Total                                    18,81,966/-

4.   The insurance company filed appeal before the High Court against
     the award also alleging that the accident was not due to the rash
     and negligent driving of the motor cycle, based on the eye-witness
     testimony and also the charge-sheet registered against the driver.
     The High Court found the accident to have been caused due to the
     rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bike, whose owner is
     indemnified by the insurance company. We find no reason to differ
     from the said findings.
5.   The next issue considered was as to whether the petitioner No.1 is
     a dependent. The husband of the deceased was not a dependent
     though he was a legal heir especially since he was an abled bodied
     person of 40 years, was the finding.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                       2061

                      Sri Malakappa & Ors. v.
      The IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited & Anr.

6.    As far as the income of deceased though ₹15,000/- was claimed,
      the income determined by the Tribunal was ₹7,000. The High Court
      enhanced the income to ₹8,000/-; though there was no appeal by
      the claimants.
7.    The deduction applicable for personal expenses was fixed at 1/3rd,
      considering the dependent family as one comprised of the deceased
      and only two children. However, we are of the opinion that since
      there was no employment specified of the husband, it cannot be
      assumed that he would not have been at least partially dependent on
      the income of the deceased. Hence the family has to be comprised
      of 4 in which circumstances the deduction for personal expenses
      shall be at 1/4th.
8.    As far as the additions are concerned, the Tribunal accepted 50% as
      future prospects, which the High Court deleted. In National Insurance
      Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,1 a Constitution Bench, insofar as a self-
      employed person below the age of 40 years, declared an addition
      for future prospects, which was limited to 40%. The appropriate
      multiplier to be applied was taken as 16 since the deceased was
      aged 35 years. The future prospects of 50% as awarded by the
      Tribunal was deleted which is proper, but this has to be granted at
      the rate of 40%. For loss of estate and funeral expenses, ₹15,000/-
      was granted while for loss of consortium a sum of ₹40,000/- was
      granted. In New India Assurance Company vs. Somwati2 held
      that loss of consortium is not restricted to the wife alone but has to
      be awarded to the children and parents.
9.    Since there was no appeal filed from the order of the Tribunal
      determining the income at ₹7,000/-, we find no reason to increase
      the income but however, the claimant would be entitled to 40% for
      future prospects and the deduction for personal expenses will be
      1/4th. The medical expenses as accepted by the Tribunal based on
      bills has to be granted. In addition to spousal loss of consortium
      children too are entitled at the rate of ₹40,000/-. In the above
      circumstances, we award the following compensation under the
      following heads:



1    (2017) 16 SCC 680
2    (2020) 9 SCC 644
2062                                                     [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports



         Nos.    Particulars                             Amount in ₹
         1       Loss of dependency                      16,12,800/-
                 8000x12x140%x16x1/4
         2       Loss of consortium                      1,20,000/-
         3       Medical expenses                        21,966/-
         4       Transport and funeral expenses          15,000/-
         5       Loss of estate                          15,000/-
                 Total                                   17,84,766/-

10. There is no scope for loss of love and affection, since already loss
    of consortium has been awarded. We are conscious of the fact
    that incremental increases have been made from the award of the
    Tribunal though the appellant had not challenged the Tribunal’s order.
    We are of the opinion that what has been enhanced is only the pro-
    rata amounts under the conventional heads, while the percentage
    adopted for future prospects and the deduction for personal expenses
    have been reduced. We do this exercise on the trite principle that
    what is to be awarded is ‘just compensation’ as has been held by
    the Constitution Bench. The award as modified by us also does not
    exceed that granted by the Tribunal. We dispose of the appeal with
    the above modifications.
11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain