Nirmala Bai v. Mansingh - Motor Accident Compensation
Motor Accident Compensation - Claimants claimed that deceased was cultivating land and involved in animal husbandry and milk vending - SC held: 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. 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 - The income of the deceased can be increased from ₹5,000/- per month, as taken by the High Court, to ₹8,000/- per month.
Case Info
Coram:The judgment is by a two‑Judge Bench:
- Justice Rajesh Bindal
- Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Judgment date:
- 13 January 2026 (as shown at the end: “NEW DELHI; January 13, 2026.”)
Caselaws and citations referred:
- Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal and Others, cited as: “2025 INSC 361: (2025) 9 SCC 539”
.