1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.7100/2023) AMRIT JAIN & ORS. … APPELLANT(S) Versus ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Time taken for disposal of the original claim petition Time taken for disposal of the appeal by the High Court Time taken for disposal of the appeal in this Court 6 years 7months 6 years 7 months 1 year 11 months Leave granted. 2. We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned Senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent- insurer. Appreciably he has assisted the Court with all fairness and
2 candidness. He has also invited our attention to the response affidavit filed by the insurer. 3. On 7 th October, 2008, Shri Rajender Kumar Jain @ Shri Rajender Kumar Lodha and his wife Smt. Suman Devi Jain died as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Their children, four in number being claimants- aged between 12 to 18 years, instituted an application seeking compensation under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Such claim petition instituted on 17 th June, 2009 stood decided by the learned District Judge, Bokaro vide order dated 28 th January, 2016. The Tribunal in the case of the deceased father awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.34,69,800/- which, however, was reduced by the High Court to a sum of Rs.28,72,046/-. In the case of the deceased mother, the Tribunal awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.48,99,375/- which stands reduced by the High Court to Rs.37,23,880/-. 4. Certain facts are not in dispute. (a) the parents of the claimants died as a result of a motor vehicle accident which took place on 7 th October, 2008; (b) the claimants being four in number are the dependents; (c) that they alone are entitled for compensation; and (d) the liability is that of the insurer. 5. In the response affidavit, respondents have furnished information
3 indicating the head of the claims and the compensation, which the insurer genuinely assesses to be fairly awarded. 6. In the case of death of the father Shri Rajender Kumar Jain, the compensation suggested by the insurer, as against the claim set up, is as under : Rajendra Kumar Jain - 48 years [Father] Head Compensation Claimed by Petitioners in SLP Reply of ICICI Lombard GIC Income Rs.3,25,032/-(gross income) minus Rs.23,600/- (tax) = Rs.3,01,432/- Rs.3,25,032/-(gross income) minus Rs. 23,600/- (tax) = Rs.3,01,432/- Income after adding future prospects Rs.3,76,790/- [25% future prospects) Rs.3,76,790/- [25% future prospects) Income after deduction of personal expenses (1/4th). Rs.2,82,592/- Rs.2,82,592/- Multiplier 13 13 Income after applying the multiplier Rs.2,82,592/- x 13 = Rs.36,73,703/- Rs.2,82,592/- x 13 = Rs.36,73,703/- Loss of love and affection Rs.50,000 x 4 = Rs.2,00,000/- Not payable separately. Part of parental consortium. As per the law laid down in the case of United India Insurance Vs. Satinder Kaur (2021) 11 SCC 780 Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.20,000/- as per the law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay
4 Sethi Judgment (2017) 16 SCC 680 Loss of parental Consortium Rs.44,000/-x 4 = Rs.1,76,000/- Rs.44,000/- x 4 = Rs.1,76,000/- as per the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) Loss of estate Rs.25,000/- Rs.20,000/- as per the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) Total Rs.40,99,703/- Rs.38,89,696/- Interest 12% 7.5% as per the decision in the case of Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors. 7. In case of death of the Mother, Smt. Suman Devi (age 40 years), the compensation suggested by the insurer, as against the claim set up, is as under:- Suman Devi - 40 years [Mother] Head Compensation Claimed by Petitioners in SLP Reply of ICICI Lombard GIC Income Rs.2,86,714/- (gross income) minus Rs.23,750/- (tax) = Rs.2,62,964/- Rs.2,86,714/- (gross income) minus Rs. 23,750/- (tax) = Rs.2,62,964/- Income after adding future prospects Rs.3,28,705/- [25% future prospects) Rs.3,28,705/- [25% future prospects) Income after deduction of personal expenses (1/4th) Rs.2,46,528/- Rs.2,46,528/-
5 Multiplier 15 15 Income after applying the multiplier Rs.2,46,528/- x 15 = Rs.36,97,931/- Rs.2,46,528/- x 15 = Rs.36,97,931/- Loss of love and affection Rs.50,000 x 4 = Rs.2,00,000/- Not payable separately. Part of parental consortium. As per the law laid down in the case of United India Insurance Vs. Satinder Kaur (2021) 11 SCC 780 Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.20,000/- as per the law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi Judgment (2017) 16 SCC 680 Loss of parental Consortium Rs.50,000/- x 4 = Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.44,000/- x 4 = Rs.1,76,000/- as per the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) Loss of estate Rs.25,000/- Rs.20,000/- as per the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) Total Rs.41,23,931/- Rs.39,13,920/- Interest 12% 7.5% as per the decision in the case of Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors. 8. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made across the Bar, we are of the considered view that the compensation now suggested by the insurer appears to be just, fair and reasonable. Thus, in our considered view, the amount awarded by the Tribunal and the judgment and order dated 1 st November, 2022 passed by the
6 High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, requires to be modified, which is so done, with the claimants being entitled to a sum of Rs.38,89,696/- in the case of the deceased father and a sum of Rs.39,13,920/- in the case of the deceased mother, along with interest @ 7.5 per cent. 9. The final computation of compensation would be thus:- Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by the High Court Compensation awarded by this Court In the case of deceased father Shri Rajender Kumar Jain Rs.34,69,800/- Rs.28,72,046/- Rs.38,89,696/- In the case of deceased mother Smt. Suman Devi Rs.48,99,375/- Rs.37,23,880/- Rs.39,13,920/- 10. Interest payable is @ 7.5%. 11. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. …………………………………J. (SANJAY KAROL) ………………..…………………J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA) New Delhi; 3 rd February, 2025.
7 ITEM NO.305 COURT NO.16 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7100/2023 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-11-2022 in MA No. 192/2016 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi] AMRIT JAIN & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.Respondent(s) Date : 03-02-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Ms. Sarvshree, Adv. Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gautam Jha, Adv. Mr. Rahul Negi, Adv. Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (VARSHA MENDIRATTA) (ANU BHALLA) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed order is placed on the file)
ITEM NO.52 COURT NO.17 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7100/2023 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-11-2022 in MA No. 192/2016 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi] AMRIT JAIN & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.Respondent(s) Date : 24-01-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Ms. Sarvshree, Adv. Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Soumya Shandilya, Adv. For Respondent(s) :Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Ms. Manjeet Chawla, learned counsel for the insurer submits that despite her having filed Vakalatnama and memo of appearance, the Registry has not reflected her name in the cause list. As such, on her request, matter is adjourned. 2. List on 03.02.2025 at 3.00 P.M. as part-heard. 3 Registry is directed to reflect the name of the learned counsel for the insurerm in future, in the cause list. 4. Response, if any, positively be filed in next two working days. 5. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. 6. No further opportunity shall be provided. (RAJNI MUKHI) (ANU BHALLA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
ITEM NO.269 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT SPECIAL LOK ADALAT Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7100/2023 (Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 01-11-2022 in MA No. 192/2016 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi) AMRIT JAIN & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 55756/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Date : 30-07-2024 Present : Members of Lok Adalat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA MS. VIBHA DUTTA MAKHIJA, SR. ADVOCATE MR. V.N. RAGHUPATHY, AOR For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sarvshree, Adv. Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR For Respondent(s) A W A R D 1. The dispute between the parties has been referred for determination to the Lok Adalat. 2. The matter(s) could not be settled in Lok Adalat. 3. List the matter(s) in Court. (NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITEM NO.20 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SH. PRADIP Y. LADEKAR Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7100/2023 AMRIT JAIN & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.Respondent(s) Date : 19 - 03 - 2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Despite due service on respondent nos.1 to 4, there is no appearance. Hence, process the matter for listing before the Hon’ble Court, as per rules. PRADIP Y. LADEKAR Registrar
ITEM NO.22 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SH. MAHESH TANAJIRAO PATANKAR Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7100/2023 AMRIT JAIN & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.Respondent(s) Date : 02 - 02 - 2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Despite due service on respondent nos.3 and 4, there is no appearance. Delay in filing spare copies is condoned. Notice be issued to respondent nos.1 and 2. List again on 19.03.2024. MAHESH TANAJIRAO PATANKAR Registrar
ITEM NO.38 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SH. VIVEK SAXENA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7100/2023 AMRIT JAIN & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.Respondent(s) Date : 04-12-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Despite due service on respondent nos.3 and 4, there is no appearance. As requested, four weeks time, is granted to Ld. counsel for the petitioner, to take fresh steps and file fresh particulars, to issue notice to respondent nos.1 and 2. List again on 02.02.2024. VIVEK SAXENA Registrar
ITEM NO.58 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SH. PUNEET SEHGAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7100/2023 AMRIT JAIN & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.Respondent(s) Date : 18-09-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Two weeks time, is granted to petitioners to take fresh steps to issue notice to respondent Nos. 1 to 4. List again on 20.11.2023. PUNEET SEHGAL Registrar MG
ITEM NO.54 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SH. VIVEK SAXENA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7100/2023 AMRIT JAIN & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.Respondent(s) Date : 21-07-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R Fresh steps for the service of notice by usual mode to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 shall be taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner within a period of three weeks. List again on 8.9.2023. VIVEK SAXENA Registrar MG
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.13 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 10231/2023 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-11-2022 in MA No. 192/2016 passed by the High Court Of Jharkhand At Ranchi) AMRIT JAIN & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.Respondent(s) ( IA No.55756/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ) Date : 28-03-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Relying upon the pronouncement of judgment by three Judge Bench of this Court in Case of “ Kirti & Anr. Etc. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.” ( 2021) 2 SCC 166, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that any concession made before the tribunal of the High Court in law by the counsel would not bind the parties. Prima-facie, the issue requires consideration. Issue notice, returnable within four weeks. (SONIA GULATI) (BEENA JOLLY) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)