LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/sarup-singh-ram-sarup-vs-hdfc-ergo-general-insurance-company-ltd-and-ors-20221017/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Sarup Singh @ Ram Sarup vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
17 October 2022
Case No.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7283-7284 of 2022
Result
Partly allowed
Bench
M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
Citation
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 1008 : 2022 INSC 1098
Supreme Court Reports [2022] 14 S.C.R. 1008 : 2022 INSC 1098
Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Compensation – Fatal accident – Tribunal considered notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000 per month and awarded compensation of Rs.20.64 lacs – High Court reduced compensation to Rs.11.34 lacs by considering notional income of Rs.6500 per month – High Court also reduced rate of interest from 9% to 6% p.a. – Appeal by claimants against reduction of compensation – Held: The amount awarded by the High Court can be said to be on lower side – While awarding the loss of dependency, the High Court did not award/consider the future prospects at all – Considering the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi and Ors. and the decision in the case of Janabai, the claimant shall also be entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards parental consortium for minor child; Rs. 40,000/- towards spousal consortium for wife and Rs. 40,000/- towards filial consortium for the father of the deceased – High Court also erred in reducing interest from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a. – Considering the fact that the deceased died in the year 2012, the claimants shall be entitled to the interest @ 7.5% p.a. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

Read the full headnote (3 more paragraphs)

HELD: The amount awarded by the High Court can be said to be on lower side. While awarding the loss of dependency, the High Court has not awarded/considered the future prospects at all. As per the decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., there shall be 40% rise towards future prospects. Therefore, even if considering the notional income @ Rs. 6,500/- per month as determined by the High Court and adding 40% towards future prospects and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expense of the deceased and by applying the multiple of 17, the claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 12,37,790/- under the head loss of dependency. Considering the decision of this Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Ors. and the recent decision of this Court in the case of Janabai and Ors. Vs. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., the claimant shall also be entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards parental consortium for minor child; Rs. 40,000/- towards spousal consortium for wife and Rs. 40,000/- towards filial consortium for the father of the deceased. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 1,20,000/- under the head loss of consortium. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 30,000/- under the conventional head (funeral expense and loss of estate). The High Court has also erred in reducing the interest from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a. Considering the fact that the deceased died in the year 2012, the claimants shall be entitled to the interest @ 7.5% p.a. [Para 4][1010-F-H; 1011-A-C]

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100; Janabai and Ors. v. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General

Insurance Company Ltd. 2022 ACJ 2003 – relied on.

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 M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 20,64,000/- as awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) to Rs.11,34,136/-alongwith interest @ 6% p.a., the original claimants have preferred the present appeals. 2. The deceased at the time of accident was of 28 years of age. The original claimants – wife of the deceased, minor daughter, father and sister of the deceased filed the cla
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 →