Summary and Analysis of Kavita Devi & Others vs Sunil Kumar & Another (Civil Appeal No(s). _____ of 2025)

1. Heading of the Judgment

Kavita Devi & Others vs Sunil Kumar & Another
(Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Citation: (2025) INSC 938

2. Related Laws and Precedents

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Section 166): Compensation claims for accident victims.

• Key Precedents:
  Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009): Guidelines for income computation, deductions, and multiplier selection.
  Pranay Sethi v. NIC (2017): Future prospects (50% for victims aged 30–40) and conventional heads (funeral, loss of estate, consortium).
  Magma Insurance v. Nanu Ram (2018): Recognition of parental consortium for children.
  Indira Srivastava v. NIC (2008): "Just compensation" includes all monetary benefits supporting the family.

3. Basic Case Details

• Parties:
  Appellants: Kavita Devi (widow) and two minor children of Lokender Kumar (deceased).
  Respondents: Car driver (Sunil Kumar) and insurer.

• Accident (16 February 2009):
  Deceased (aged 35) died on Sohna-Gurgaon Road when a rashly driven Santro car hit him.

• Lower Courts’ Decisions:
  Tribunal (2010): Awarded ₹2.54 lakhs (income: ₹3,665/month; no future prospects; multiplier 8).
  High Court (2013): Enhanced to ₹7.23 lakhs (added 50% future prospects; multiplier 16).

• Appeal to Supreme Court: For further enhancement.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Core Issues

1. Whether allowances (HRA/other) should be excluded from income.

2. Whether agricultural income (claimed ₹5,000/month) was proven.

3. Correct computation of conventional heads (consortium, funeral, loss of estate).

Supreme Court’s Ruling

1. Total Monthly Income Fixed at ₹6,500:
   Deceased’s salary slip (Ex. P6) proved ₹6,500/month, inclusive of allowances.
   Tribunal Erred: Excluded allowances (₹2,835) due to discrepancies in ESI Forms 6 and 6A.
   Court’s View: Allowances form part of "actual income" as they supported the family (Indira Srivastava).

2. Agricultural Income Rejected:
   No evidence (e.g., land records, income proof) to support claim of ₹5,000/month.

3. Revised Compensation Calculation:
   Monthly Income: ₹6,500.
   Deduction for Personal Expenses: 1/3rd (₹2,167) → Net Dependency: ₹4,333.
   Future Prospects: 50% (₹2,167) → Total Monthly Income: ₹6,500.
   Multiplier: 16 (age 35) → Loss of Dependency: ₹6,500 × 12 × 16 = ₹12.48 lakhs.

4. Conventional Heads Enhanced:
   Spousal Consortium: ₹48,400 (to widow).
   Parental Consortium: ₹48,400 × 2 = ₹96,800 (to children).
   Loss of Estate: ₹18,150.
   Funeral Expenses: ₹18,150.
   Total Compensation: ₹14.29 lakhs (up from ₹7.23 lakhs).

Interest and Disbursement

• Interest: 7% per annum from claim petition date (excluding 1,855 days of appeal delay).

• Disbursement:
  Widow (Kavita Devi): 50% immediately.
  Children: 25% each via fixed deposits (released at majority).

Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed

1. "Just Compensation" Includes Allowances:
   Perks supporting the family must be included in income (Indira Srivastava).

2. Burden of Proof:
   Unsubstantiated claims (e.g., agricultural income) rejected without evidence.

3. Consortium Rights:
   Children entitled to parental consortium (Magma Insurance).

Significance:
The judgment prevents hyper-technical exclusion of allowances, ensuring families receive fair compensation reflecting actual financial loss. It reinforces the humanitarian intent of the Motor Vehicles Act.