LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/bhartiben-nayabha-ker-and-ors-vs-sidabha-pethabha-manke-and-ors-20180406/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Bhartiben Nayabha Ker and Ors. vs Sidabha Pethabha Manke and Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
6 April 2018
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 2697 of 2018
Result
Allowed
Bench
Dipak Misra, D.Y. Chandrachud, A.M. Khanwilkar
Citation
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 1052 : 2018 INSC 305
Supreme Court Reports [2018] 3 S.C.R. 1052 : 2018 INSC 305
Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Death due to motor accident – Tribunal allowed compensation claim of appellants in the amount of Rs.7,78,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. – High Court allowed an additional amount of Rs.33,000/- under the head of loss of life, expenses and consortium but did not allow for future prospects and also reduced the rate of interest from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a. – On appeal, held: In view of the decision of Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, an addition of 25% is warranted, on account of future prospects having regard to the age of the deceased (41 years) – Quantum of compensation shall stand enhanced to Rs.12,67,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition.

Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants died when the jeep that he was travelling in was hit by a truck driven by the first respondent. MACT allowed the claim in the amount of Rs.7,78,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., as against the claim of appellants for Rs.13 lakhs. In appeal, High Court allowed an additional amount of Rs.33,000/- under the head of loss of life, expenses and consortium but reduced the rate of interest from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a. Hence, the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The High Court had computed the total income of the deceased at Rs 91,800/- (Rs 55,000/- being the income from agriculture and Rs 36,800/- being the income from salary). In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, an addition of 25% is warranted, on account of future prospects having regard to the age of the deceased (41 years). The total income, after accounting for future prospects at 25% would work * Judgment delivered on 05.04.2018

** Corrigendum dated 06.04.2018

Read the full headnote (2 more paragraphs)

out to Rs 1,14,000/- per annum. An amount of one fourth would have to be reduced on account of personal expenses. The net income would work out to Rs 85,500/-. Applying a multiplier of 14, the total compensation would work out to Rs 11,97,000/-. Adding a further amount of Rs 70,000/- under conventional heads as stipulated in the judgment in Pranay Sethi, the total compensation payable would work out to Rs 12,67,000/-. There is no reason to intefere with the award of interest at 9% p.a. by the High Court. The quantum of compensation shall stand enhanced to Rs 12,67,000/- on which interest shall be payable at 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition. [Paras 5-7][1054-GH; 1055-A-C]

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 13 SCALE 12 – followed.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The present appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 15 March 2016, in a first appeal from the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jamnagar. 2. The appellants are heirs and legal representatives of NayabhaMapbha Ker who died as a result of a motor accident on 18 July 1993. He was travelling in a jeep bearing Registration No GBI7896 which was being driven by the fourth respondent towards Mithapur. At about 3.00 am the first respondent who was driving a truck bearing Registration No.
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →