Supreme Court Restored Tribunal's Full Motor-Accident Compensation Award, Set Aside High Court's Reduction

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by SBI General Insurance challenging an award of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in respect of the death of a truck driver. The issue related to the appropriate monthly income to be adopted for computation of dependency and the entitlement to loss of consortium for dependents.

The Court allowed the appeal by the claimants, set aside the High Court's order that had reduced the Tribunal's award, and restored the Tribunal's award of Rs.23,07,000. The Court rejected the High Court's reduction of the deceased's monthly income and held that the salary of Rs.10,000 adopted by the Tribunal was justified for the year of the accident (2014), applying precedents on minimum earnings for unskilled labour. The Court directed: "The amounts, with interest, as awarded by the Tribunal shall be disbursed to the claimants within a period of two months," with equal apportionment among the wife, children and parents, and specific directions for minors' shares to be kept in fixed deposit with interest payable to the mother as guardian. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We find no reason to accede to the reduction of income as done by the High Court. The accident occurred on 08.05.2014. In Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd1 this Court held that even a coolie would get an income of Rs.4,500/-in the year 2004. Hence, an unskilled labourer considering the marginal and incremental increase in each successive year @ Rs.500/- per year would be entitled to get almost Rs.10,000/- in the year 2014. Hence, the claim made before the Tribunal with respect to the driver of heavy vehicle getting Rs.10,000/- as wages per month must be necessarily accepted. Insofar as the loss of consortium, it has been held in New India Assurance Company v. Somwati and Ors.2 that even the children and the parents are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium."

Background The deceased, a 28‑year‑old truck driver and the breadwinner, had alighted after parking his vehicle and was struck and killed by another truck driven rashly and negligently. The helper/cleaner at the scene gave a First Information Statement and admitted the injured to hospital. The claimants — the widow, three minor children and the parents — filed a claim before the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded Rs.23,07,000 adopting a monthly salary of Rs.10,000, allowing one‑third deductions for personal expenses, applying 40% of income for future prospects (taking 3/4th of that), and awarding loss of consortium to the wife (Rs.40,000), the children (Rs.25,000 each) and the parents (Rs.10,000 each), along with funeral and loss of estate expenses.

The insurer appealed to the High Court, which materially reduced the monthly income to Rs.4,076 (adopting minimum wages for a driver at Rs.5,434 with 40% future prospects) and reduced other heads, bringing the award down to Rs.12,34,105. The claimants did not file any cross‑appeal seeking enhancement before this Court. Relying on this Court's precedent in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd and the decision in New India Assurance Company v. Somwati & Ors., the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's assessment of wages and the grants of loss of consortium to the dependents. The Supreme Court directed that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, with interest, be disbursed within two months and apportioned equally among the wife, children and parents; amounts due to minors were to be kept in fixed deposit with interest payable to the mother as guardian. The insurance company was ordered to deposit the amounts within the period stipulated before the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed and pending applications stood disposed of.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 706 Case Title: HANSA DEVI & ORS. v. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment