Supreme Court judgment increases compensation for accident victim Lokender Kumar’s family.
SC ENHANCES COMPENSATION TO ₹14.29 LAKH IN MOTOR ACCIDENT CASE OF LOKENDER KUMAR
CASE SUMMARY – In Kavita Devi v. Sunil Kumar, the Supreme Court dealt with an appeal for enhanced compensation filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased, Lokender Kumar, died in a road accident, leaving behind a wife and two children. The Tribunal and High Court awarded ₹2.54 lakh and ₹7.23 lakh, respectively. The appellants challenged the quantum, arguing that the deceased’s full income and agricultural earnings were ignored. The Supreme Court held that allowances and future prospects should have been included, and enhanced the compensation to ₹14.29 lakh with 7% interest, ensuring equitable distribution and FD arrangements for minors.
| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | Kavita Devi & Ors. vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr. |
| Introduction | Appeal filed by the deceased’s wife and children under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation due to the fatal accident involving Lokender Kumar. |
| Factual Background | Lokender Kumar died on 16/02/2009 due to a rashly driven Santro car. Compensation was initially awarded by the Tribunal and later enhanced by the High Court. The appellants still found it inadequate and approached the Supreme Court. |
| Legal Issues | Whether the salary allowances should be excluded while computing income, whether agricultural income was wrongly ignored, and if proper compensation principles and precedents were applied (Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, Indira Srivastava cases). |
| Applicable Law |
|
| Analysis | The court held allowances should not have been excluded; agricultural income was ignored; multiplier and deduction used earlier were incorrect. Court applied just compensation principle considering changing family circumstances and future prospects. |
| Conclusion | Supreme Court enhanced compensation to ₹14,29,500 with 7% interest p.a. from the date of the original claim petition, excluding delayed period interest. Amount apportioned between claimants in 50:25:25 ratio. |
| Current Scenario | Compensation awarded. Directions given for FD of minors’ share. Supreme Court allowed appeal in part, with explicit timelines for deposit and distribution. |
“Just compensation must reflect the true financial contribution of the deceased, inclusive of all allowances and future prospects.”
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
READ ALSO – SC RULES OPERATION ASHA A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST UNDER SECTION 92 CPC
