SC enhances compensation for farmer died in road accident

The Supreme Court has said, 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.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi increased the assessment ot amount of income of a farmer, who died in a road accident, from Rs 5,000 per month to Rs 8,000 per month.  

Nirmala Bai and others assailed the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which increased compensation to Rs 16,42,694 as against Rs 14,36,694 as awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore.

As per facts of the matter, in an accident, which took place on November 22, 2014, one Saligram died. The appellants were the widow of the deceased, one son and one daughter. His mother died during the pendency of the proceedings.

At the time of death, the deceased was 45 years of age and was engaged in cultivating land, animal husbandry and milk vending. Though, it was claimed that he was earning about Rs 20,000 per month, however, no evidence was produced in that regard before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its award, taking the income of the deceased Saligram at Rs 3,000 per month, awarded a compensation of Rs 14,36,694.

The High Court increased the compensation to Rs 16,42,694 by increasing the income of the deceased from Rs 3,000 to Rs 5,000 per month.  

The appellants' counsel contended that the age of the deceased was taken as 45 years and on the basis of that multiplier of 14 was applied, whereas, the deceased was 35 years of age and in terms thereof multiplier of 16 was required to be applied. In support to the claim on the age of the deceased, the appellants relied upon the Aadhaar card.

It was also contended that the deceased was earning about Rs 20,000 per month. His income was taken on the lower side. The compensation towards loss of consortium has not been awarded to all the dependents. The rate of interest also needs to be enhanced to 9% p.a. as against 6% p.a.  

The counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the amount of compensation as was awarded by the Tribunal was fair. However, still the High Court enhanced it by a further sum of Rs 2,06,000. It was further submitted that in the absence of any proof, the income of the deceased cannot be increased any further. Aadhaar card cannot be accepted as proof of age. There is no ground at all on the basis of which the compensation payable to the appellants can be enhanced any further.  

"As far as the age of the deceased is concerned, in our opinion, in the absence of any clinching evidence produced on record by the appellants/claimants, no interference is called for in the finding recorded by the Tribunal,'' the bench said.

The court also noted, when the claim petition was filed in the month of February 2015, the age of son of the deceased was shown as 17 years. If the deceased was 35 years of age when the accident took place in 2014, the deceased would have been around 18 years of age at the time of birth of his son. 

"Hence, the argument is unbelievable,'' it said.  

With regard to the assessment of income of the deceased, it was claimed that he was cultivating land. He was also involved in animal husbandry and milk vending. 

"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 bench said.

The court awarded an additional sum of Rs 1,20,000 under the head of consortium. Allowing the appeal, the court awarded a sum of Rs 22,66,694 to the claimants.

Case Title: Nirmala Bai And Others Vs Mansingh & Others decided by Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi on January 13, 2026.