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

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 590
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-04-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5666 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sudhanshu Dhulia, K. Vinod Chandran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sri-malakappa-ors-v-the-iffco-tokio-general-insurance-company-limited-anr-38382
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

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 wifepillion 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]

## Text

[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 wifepillion 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 selfemployed 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
8000x12x140%x16x1/4
16,12,800/-
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 prorata 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