THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusNIRU @ NIHARIKA & ORS.

                  [2025] 7 S.C.R. 474 : 2025 INSC 822

                   The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
                                  v.
                       Niru @ Niharika & Ors.
               (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11340 of 2020)
                                14 July 2025
           [Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether any interference is required in the multiplier adopted
       by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court; Whether the 9%
       interest rate granted by the Tribunal is perfectly in order.

                                 Headnotes†
       Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Victim-deceased collided
       with a truck in the year 1995 – Victim died – Deceased was
       working as an Engineer with the Brtish Telecom and was
       paid in pounds – The wife and two minor children of the
       deceased sought compensation – Tribunal found the driver
       of the truck negligent – The income stood proved and the
       Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 13 and reduced 1/3rd of the
       income for personal expenses – Loss of dependency was
       computed at Rs.78,33,540/- to which award, Rs.40,000/- as
       loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate
       and funeral expenses were added – The total compensation
       awarded was Rs.79,04,540/- – The High Court affirmed the
       negligence of the truck driver and interfered with the quantum
       only to the extent of reducing the average exchange rate as
       existing in the years 1995 & 1996 – Whether the order of the
       High Court requires interference:
       Held: Presumably the family pension was only payable to the wife
       and when she got remarried, the same was stopped – However,
       it cannot be said that the minor children were not entitled to the
       multiplier as adopted by the Tribunal – In such circumstances,
       there is no reason to interfere with the multiplier adopted by the
       Tribunal & affirmed by the High Court – The compensation for loss
       of dependency would thus be; Rs.56,165 x 130% x 12 x 13 x 2/3rd =
       Rs.75,93,508/- – To the said amount would be added Rs.70,000/-,


* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            475

        The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru @ Niharika & Ors.


     being the amounts granted by the Tribunal for loss of consortium,
     loss of estate and funeral expenses – The total award hence would
     be Rs.76,63,508/-, as determined by the High Court too – Further,
     9% interest rate granted by the Tribunal is perfectly in order – No
     illegality in awarding interest for future prospects – In SLP(C)
     No.11340 of 2020, the multiplier applied looking at the life span of
     the deceased and the claimants is 13 – Before the Tribunal itself,
     the case was pending for 12 years and the only amount received
     by the claimants was Rs.50,000/- – Hence though amounts are
     awarded for future prospects taking the multiplier of 13; in effect,
     the money is received only after the period for which the multiplier
     is adopted – Similar is the case in SLP(C) No.22136 of 2024
     where the accident occurred in 2018, the multiplier applied is 17
     and seven years have passed from the date of accident – The
     order of the High Court in both the cases is upheld and there is
     no reason to interfere with the same. [Paras 6, 8, 9, 12]

                             List of Keywords
     Motor Vehicle Accident claim; Compensation; Multiplier; Loss of
     dependency; Loss of consortium; Loss of estate; Funeral Expenses;
     Rate of interest; Awarding interest for future prospects.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
     No. 11340 of 2020
     From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2019 of the High Court
     of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in FA No. 1789 of 2019
     With
     Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22136 of 2024

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Petitioner:
     Aditya Kumar, Ms. Ila Nath, C. George Thomas, Abhishek Gola,
     Viresh B. Saharya, Anshul Mehral, Akshat Agarwal, Rishabh Sahai
     Mathur, Nishant.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Mohit D. Ram, Ms. Sthavi Asthana, Dr. Linto K.b., Sanjib
     Khandayatray, Duvvada Ramesh.
476                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

       K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1.     The wife and two minor children of the deceased in a motor
       vehicle accident were before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
       for compensation on loss of dependency. The accident occurred on
       18.11.1995 when the deceased was travelling in a car which collided
       with a truck. On the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the
       truck, the claimants were before the Tribunal seeking compensation
       of Rs.1,00,00,000/- which was later amended and enhanced to
       Rs.1,30,00,000/-. The deceased alongwith his family, the claimants
       were residing in the United Kingdom. The deceased was a person
       with several academic achievements working as an Engineer with
       the British Telecom and was paid salary in Pounds.
2.     The Tribunal found negligence of the driver of the truck relying on
       the F.I.R. as also the award passed in a claim petition filed by the
       driver of the car, wherein negligence was clearly found on the truck
       driver. The income stood proved and the Tribunal adopted a multiplier
       of 13 and reduced 1/3rd of the income for personal expenses. Loss
       of dependency was computed at Rs.78,33,540/- to which award,
       Rs.40,000/- as loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each for loss of
       estate and funeral expenses were added. The total compensation
       awarded was Rs.79,04,540/-.
3.     The Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court
       against the award amounts raising multifarious contentions. It was
       first contended that the accident occurred only due to the rashness
       and negligence of the car driver. On the quantum, it was submitted
       that admittedly the wife married in the year 2002 and the multiplier
       should have been only 7, taken from the death of the first husband.
       The exchange rate as adopted by the Tribunal, was also assailed
       together with the interest granted at the rate of 9%, which it was
       contended was against the existing interest rates. Specific contention
       was taken against the long delay in disposing of the claim petition,
       which was filed in the year 1995 and disposed of in the year 2017.
       The allegation was that the claimants who were residing in the U.K.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          477

        The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru @ Niharika & Ors.


     were solely responsible for the delay occasioned. We see the said
     contention having been taken relying on Annexure A-4 produced in
     the memorandum of SLP filed.
4.   The High Court affirmed the negligence of the truck driver and interfered
     with the quantum only to the extent of reducing the average exchange
     rate as existing in the years 1995 & 1996. The exchange rate of Indian
     Rupee per Pound was determined at Rs.52.3526 as against the
     determination of Rs.54.2601 by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company
     has filed the appeal to cause further interference to the quantum on
     the various other grounds taken before the Tribunal which according
     to the Insurance Company was not considered at all by the Tribunal.
5.   The Insurance Company has specifically stated in the appeal
     memorandum that based on the exchange rate applicable at the
     time of the accident, the monthly income of the deceased should
     only have been Rs.56,168 (1072.94 x 52.35); which was accepted
     by the High Court. The Tribunal and the High Court were correct in
     having deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses and the addition made
     of 30% for future prospects.
6.   One other compelling contention taken by the Insurance Company
     before the High Court and this Court is that the first respondent-
     wife of the deceased admitted that she got remarried in 2002 and
     after that she alongwith her children was living with her second
     husband. She also admitted that the pension she received from the
     deceased husband’s employer was stopped after that. Obviously,
     the loss of dependency of the claimants could be assessed only
     for 7 years; i.e. from 1995-2002, argues the insurer. Presumably
     the family pension was only payable to the wife and when she got
     remarried, the same was stopped. However, it cannot be said that
     the minor children were not entitled to the multiplier as adopted by
     the Tribunal. In such circumstances, we find absolutely no reason
     to interfere with the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal & affirmed by
     the High Court. The compensation for loss of dependency would
     thus be; Rs.56,165 x 130% x 12 x 13 x 2/3rd = Rs.75,93,508/-. To
     the said amount would be added Rs.70,000/-, being the amounts
     granted by the Tribunal for loss of consortium, loss of estate and
     funeral expenses. The total award hence would be Rs.76,63,508/-,
     as determined by the High Court too.
478                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


7.     Yet another contention taken up is the interest granted at the rate
       of 9%. The Insurance Company relies on Annexure P-1 history of
       the case to contend that there was undue delay caused by reason
       of the claimants having not entered their evidence. From Annexure
       P-1, we see that the claim petition was filed on 28.12.1995 and it
       first came up for hearing on 11.09.2012. It is seen from Annexure
       P-1 that the case was posted for applicants’ evidence on various
       dates from 2012 to 2016. However, there is nothing to indicate that it
       was only by reason of the claimants’ absence that the consideration
       was delayed. Merely because, on various dates, for 4 years, the
       case was posted for the claimants’ evidence, it does not necessarily
       mean that the claimants were responsible for the delay. Laws delays
       cannot, without proper substantiation, be cast upon the shoulders of
       one or other party to the lis. We hence do not find any reason to find
       the delay to be the sole responsibility of the claimants and in that
       circumstance necessarily interest must run from the date of filing of
       the claim petition, to the date of payment; for which precedents are
       legion, and we need not refer to them.
8.     Further contention taken is the higher rate of interest of 9%, in
       challenge of which several precedents were placed before us.
       From the decisions perused what emanates is that in the 1980’s,
       Courts were awarding 12% interest which stood reduced to 9% in
       the 1990’s. With the advent of the 21st century and the economic
       recession world over, the interest rates fell considerably. But even
       now the rates offered by National Banks for long term deposits are
       7% or more. Considering the over-all circumstances especially the
       long delay caused, we are of the opinion that 9% interest rate granted
       by the Tribunal is perfectly in order especially noticing the accident
       having occurred in the year 1995.
9.     A very relevant issue agitated by the Insurance Company is the
       illegality in awarding interest for future prospects, which in any
       event is an amount received in advance, normally inuring to the
       benefit of the claimants only in future. This is the only contention
       taken in the connected appeal bearing SLP(C) No.22136 of 2024.
       We find absolutely no reason to accept this argument. In SLP(C)
       No.11340 of 2020, the multiplier applied looking at the life span of
       the deceased and the claimants is 13. Before the Tribunal itself, the
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         479

        The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru @ Niharika & Ors.


     case was pending for 12 years and the only amount received by
     the claimants was Rs.50,000/-. Hence though amounts are awarded
     for future prospects taking the multiplier of 13; in effect, the money
     is received only after the period for which the multiplier is adopted.
     Similar is the case in SLP(C) No.22136 of 2024 where the accident
     occurred in 2018, the multiplier applied is 17 and we are seven years
     from the date of accident.
10. We cannot but observe that there was nothing stopping the Insurance
    Company from settling the claim on a computation, on receipt of
    intimation of the accident, especially since the determination of
    compensation for loss of dependency, on death being occasioned
    in a motor vehicle accident, can be determined as evident from the
    judicial precedents; at least provisionally.
11. In fact, it is due to the repudiation of or refusal to consider the claim
    that the claimants are driven to the Tribunal. When the matter is
    pending before the Tribunal or in appeal before the higher forums,
    the claimants are deprived of the compensation for future prospects.
    If they are paid in time, it could be utilized by the claimants and on
    failure, the loss of dependency would force the claimants to source
    their livelihood from elsewhere. This is sought to be compensated
    at least minimally by award of interest, which oftener them ever is
    nominal also since only simple interest is awarded. If the amounts
    were disbursed to the claimants on a rough calculation, on intimation
    of the accident to the Insurance Company, subject to the award of
    the Tribunal, necessarily there would not have been any interest
    liability atleast to the extent of the disbursement made. Hence, we
    reject the contention and direct that the entire award amounts would
    be paid with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the
    claim till the date of disbursement, deducting only Rs.50,000/- granted
    as interim compensation, in SLP(C) No.11340 of 2020 and 6% in
    SLP(C) No.22136 of 2024 as awarded by the High Court; deduction
    to be made for the amounts already paid.
12. We uphold the order of the High Court in both cases and find no
    reason to interfere with the same. The amounts awarded, if not
    paid, shall be paid within a period of 3 months and if defaulted shall
    carry 12% interest on the total amount of award with interest from
    the date of default.
480                                                      [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


13. The Special Leave Petitions stand rejected.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.


       Result of the case: Special Leave Petitions Rejected.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan