The Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation awarded to the family of a deceased farmer and milk vendor, emphasizing the distinct and multifaceted nature of a farmer’s contribution to their family’s livelihood. The Court increased the monthly assessed income of the deceased from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 8,000, noting that those engaged in agriculture often generate additional income through animal husbandry and milk vending to ensure their family’s comfort.
The Bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, modified the High Court’s order and enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 22,66,694/- with interest.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from a motor accident that occurred on November 22, 2014, resulting in the death of one Saligram. The claimants—his widow, a son, and a daughter—approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Indore, seeking compensation. The deceased was 45 years old at the time of the accident and was engaged in cultivating land, animal husbandry, and milk vending.
Initially, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000 per month and awarded a compensation of Rs. 14,36,694/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimants appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench). The High Court enhanced the income assessment to Rs. 5,000 per month, bringing the total compensation to Rs. 16,42,694/-.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, the claimants approached the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the Appellants (Claimants) raised two primary contentions:
- Age of the Deceased: They argued that the deceased was 35 years old based on his Aadhar card, not 45 as determined by the lower courts. Consequently, they sought the application of a higher multiplier of 16 instead of 14.
- Income Assessment: It was submitted that the deceased earned approximately Rs. 20,000 per month through his agricultural and allied activities. The income assessed by the High Court was termed inadequate. Additionally, they argued that loss of consortium was not awarded to all dependents.
Conversely, the counsel for the Respondent (Insurance Company) contended that the compensation awarded was fair. They argued that in the absence of documentary proof, the income could not be enhanced further and that the Aadhar card could not be accepted as conclusive proof of age to contradict other evidence on record.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
On the Age of the Deceased: The Supreme Court rejected the appellants’ contention regarding the age of the deceased. The Bench pointed out a logical inconsistency in the claim:
“A perusal of the memo of parties before the Tribunal shows that when the claim petition was filed in the month of February 2015, the age of son of the deceased Saligram was shown as 17 years. If the deceased was 35 years of age when the accident took place on 22.11.2014, the deceased would have been around 18 years of age at the time of birth of his son. Hence, the argument is unbelievable.”
On Income Assessment: The Court took a sympathetic yet practical view regarding the income of the deceased. It observed that the contribution of a family member working on their own land and engaging in allied activities differs significantly from that of a fixed-salaried employee.
Justice Bindal, writing for the Bench, observed:
“Even if the land which may be owned by the family is still subsisting the contribution of the male member of the family needs to be assessed. There is vast difference between the quality of contribution by a family member as compared to an employee. His working hours are not fixed. Any person who has an opportunity certainly tries to do as much work as he can do to support his family and also see that they live in comfort.”
The Court further noted:
“Farming is not a regular vocation. The farmers remain engaged in doing animal husbandry and milk vending as well side by side, which also generates extra income for them.”
Based on this reasoning, the Court determined that the income of the deceased should be assessed at Rs. 8,000 per month, up from the Rs. 5,000 fixed by the High Court.
Decision and Revised Calculation
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and modified the compensation. It also addressed the issue of consortium, awarding Rs. 40,000 each to the three remaining dependents (widow, son, and daughter), totaling Rs. 1,20,000 under this head.
The revised calculation approved by the Court is as follows:
| Head | Calculation/Amount |
| Loss of Dependency | Income Rs. 8,000 + 40% (Future Prospects) – 1/3rd (Deduction) x 12 x 15 (Multiplier) = Rs. 13,44,000/- |
| Loss of Consortium | Rs. 40,000 x 3 dependents = Rs. 1,20,000/- |
| Medical Expenses | Rs. 7,32,694/- |
| Total Compensation | Rs. 22,66,694/- |
The enhanced amount will carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the High Court from the date of filing the claim petition until payment.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Nirmala Bai and Others v. Mansingh & Others
- Case No: Civil Appeal No. 248 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 5496 of 2020)
- Coram: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
