Sumina vs The Branch Manager, New India Assurance on 25 July, 2025

Supreme Court – Daily Orders

Sumina vs The Branch Manager, New India Assurance on 25 July, 2025

                                                         1


                                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.       OF 2025
                                   (Arising out of SLP(C) No.382 of 2019)




     SUMINA AND OTHERS                                                               APPELLANTS

     A1 : SUMINA

     A2 : MAHIMSIDDIKA

     A3 : NURAJAHANBI


                                                             VERSUS


     THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE                                     RESPONDENT




                                                      O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeal is directed against the impugned

judgment dated 02.09.2016 passed by the High Court of
Signature Not Verified

Karnataka at Kalaburagi by which though the High Court has
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.07.31
17:25:09 IST
Reason:

enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellants-claimants

by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Vijaypur (for short, the
2

“MACT”) from Rs.10,51,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty One

Thousand) along with interest @9% per annum to Rs.12,51,864/-

(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty

Four) maintaining the rate of interest, but the same has been

only to the extent of enhancing the monthly income of the

deceased by Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) from what the

MACT had taken into consideration.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

deceased was in the wholesale food business and was earning a

substantial amount and that is why, he could maintain his

family, business and had also taken a loan of Rs.3,50,000/-

(Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand) for buying a transport

vehicle to do his business which indicates that he was in a

capacity to pay the EMIs per month and also to maintain his

own family. Thus, according to him, the monthly income ought

not to have been less than Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

Thousand) per month. It was further submitted that in terms of

the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

(2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects had to be added to the

tune of 40% and also compensation had to be allowed on the

head of loss of consortium, which has been quantified as

Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) per claimant i.e., the

total being Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs).
3

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance

Company submits that there was no believable evidence placed

to consider the higher salary, either before the MACT or the

High Court and rightly, the monthly income has been fixed at

Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) per month. Further, it was

submitted that under various heads, higher amounts of

compensation have been made which would not require separate

compensation under the head of loss of consortium. However, he

is not in a position to controvert the same as per the

decisions in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Sarla Verma v.

Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC

130.

6. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we feel

that a case has been made out for enhancement of the monthly

income which we quantify to Rs.14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen

Thousand) per month. Further, we find that 40% future

prospects also had to be added. Besides that, as has rightly

been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent-

Insurance Company, the other heads have already been

adequately addressed. Accordingly, as per the modification

which we have indicated hereinabove, the total amount would

comes to Rs.17,13,736/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Thirteen
4

Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Six). The payment shall be made

accordingly, in terms of the MACT order, within a period of

two months from today, after adjusting what have already been

paid earlier. For the ends of justice, we further inclined to

direct that the respondent would pay the entire amount with

liberty to recover the 50% of the total amount from the owner

of the vehicle in terms of the order of the MACT.

7. With above modification in the impugned judgment, the

present appeal stand disposed of.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed

of.

……………………………………………………………………J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

…………………………………………………………………………J.
[S.V.N. BHATTI]

NEW DELHI
25th JULY, 2025
5

ITEM NO.58 COURT NO.15 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(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).382/2019

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-09-2016
in MFA No.200634/2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Kalaburagi]

SUMINA & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE Respondent(s)

Date : 25-07-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR
Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv.
Mr. Jyotish Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Yash, Adv.

Mr. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR
Mr. Rohit Kumar Sinha, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(SAPNA BISHT)                                    (ANJALI PANWAR)
COURT MASTER (SH)                              COURT MASTER (NSH)
          (Signed order is placed on the file)