Supreme Court Emphasises The Importance of Pension While Calculating Compensation.

14 July 2025 – On Monday, in the case of Suhagrani And Others Manager Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. restored insurance to a widow in a Motor Vehicle Claim. The court also emphasized the importance of Agricultural land and pensions while calculating Compensation.

Facts

The case was of a widow (Suhagrani), who, with her husband (Mr. Nathuram Ahirwar), got into an accident.

The couple was traveling on a bike when a mini-truck (Ape pick-up vehicle) hit them from behind. The deceased sustained injuries and later succumbed to them.

They claimed for insurance, but the insurer (Manager Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd) denied the claim.

Arguments—

Respondent—

The respondent claimed that the deceased lost balance while driving and then fell. So instead of it being an accident and fault on the mini-truck’s part, it was the defendant’s own fault.

They claimed that the son of the deceased, in his statement to the police, said that his father lost balance while driving, while he denied the same in the court.

Moreover, the mini-truck’s driver did not possess a license while driving; that’s why the insurance company can discharge their liability.

Appellant—

The appellants argued that since the wife of the deceased was the pallion, she was a better and more reliable witness.

The appellants also presented multiple documents, such as medical records, the FIR, the death report, and the final police report, all supporting their claim that the mini-truck was the offender.

Further, the appellant argued that the Tribunal calculated the compensation on the lower side and urged SC to increase it. They stated that the deceased was a farmer and used to earn 10 to 20 Lakhs every year. While the Tribunal only granted Rs.12,43,324/- with interest @6% p.a.

Judgment—

The Hon’ble Court said that the High court was mistaken to rely on the police statement given by the son, as he later contradicted the same while on trial.

Deceased’s wife stands to be a more credible witness, as she was the pillion rider, while her son was following them from behind.

While evaluating the claim for an increased compensation, the court noted that there was no evidence of the deceased earning 10 to 20 Lakhs per year.

As he was a farmer, his income came from the agricultural land, but even upon his death, the land will remain with the appellants. They can continue to earn from the same.

The deceased’s wife will still get a pension on her husband’s behalf. Only a partial pension was lost, but that will offset the income loss incurred. Therefore upholding the tribunal’s award and restoring the compensation.

Corram—

J.K. Maheshwari

J. Aravind Kumar