Mohinder Kaur (D) Thr. L.R vs Brij Lal Arora

2026 INSC 477 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. ……………. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 580 OF 2020)

MOHINDER KAUR (D) ….APPELLANT(S) THROUGH L.R. VERSUS

BRIJ LAL ARORA AND …RESPONDENT(S) ORS.

JUDGMENT

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

Leave Granted.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-

Claimant challenging the order dated 05.09.2018 (hereinafter

referred to as “Impugned Order”) passed in FAO-2335-2003 (O&M)

by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Signature Not Verified

(hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) wherein the High Digitally signed by SHIPRA NARANG Date: 2026.05.12 17:18:16 IST Reason:

Court partly allowed the appeal, and modified the Award dated

1 19.04.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in MACT Case

No. 81 of 07.08.2001/03.06.2002 (hereinafter referred to as

“Award”), by enhancing the compensation awarded to the

Appellant-Claimant by ₹11,21,000/-, thereby granting the total

compensation of ₹13,44,000/- as against ₹2,23,000/- awarded by

the Tribunal.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. On 28.05.2000, Karan Pal Singh (hereinafter referred to as

“deceased”), an Engineering student aged 22 years at the time of

the incident, was going on his motorcycle No. PB-21-8715

Kawasaki Bajaj towards his college, alongwith Parveen Sharma, his

classmate (hereinafter referred as “pillion rider”) on Delhi-

Mathura road, and when they reached at the turning of Ajahi at

about 10.30 AM and were waiting in the gap of the road towards

the college, the offending truck No. HR-38-E-1625 being driven by

Respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the

Delhi side at a fast speed, and hit the motorcyclists, causing severe

injuries, while also damaging the motorcycle. The injured were

2 taken to Maheshwari Hospital for treatment and the deceased was

referred to Agra for further treatment, where he succumbed to his

injuries. The owner of the offending truck is Respondent No. 1 and

the truck was insured with Respondent No. 3.

4. The Appellant-Claimant herein, being the mother of the

deceased, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a

compensation of ₹7,00,000/-.

5. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that this Court shall

confine itself solely to the issue of enhancement of compensation

and will not delve into the question concerning the cause of the

accident, inasmuch as both the Tribunal and the High Court have

concurrently held that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the offending truck by Respondent No.2, and

no dispute survives as regards this finding, and the said findings

have not been challenged by the Respondents before this Court.

AWARD PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL

6. The Appellant-Claimant pleaded that the deceased was a

bright third-year student pursuing B.E. Mechanical Engineering

from G.L.A. Institute of Technology and Management, Mathura. It

3 was further submitted that the deceased had obtained a diploma

certificate in Plastic Mould Technology issued by the Central

Institute of Plastic Engineering and Technology, Chennai (Ex.A.13),

and was granted a one-year exemption in the four-year degree

course of Engineering by G.L.A. Institute of Technology and

Management. The testimony of AW-6 Gaurav Vasudev, who had

also completed the said diploma course, was relied upon to that

effect. The Appellant-Claimant also relied upon a certificate from

Web World, Majitha Road, Amritsar showing that the deceased had

passed the prescribed course of Auto CAD. The Appellant-Claimant

further contended that the deceased was earning ₹4000/- per

month by imparting computer training to certain residents of

Mathura. On the strength of the said certificates and assertions,

the Appellant-Claimant argued that her son was capable of earning

₹15,000/- per month after completing his engineering degree.

7. However, the Tribunal observed that it was extremely difficult

to accept such an assertion regarding the income of a boy who was

still an Engineering student in the absence of proper record or

examination of the persons who were being provided computer

training. Considering that the scope of the engineering course in 4 the market had not been established by authentic evidence, and in

light of the deceased’s age (22 years at the time) and his educational

qualifications, the Tribunal held that he could earn approximately

₹3000/- per month immediately on completion of his degree.

8. As far as parental dependency was concerned, the Tribunal

held that the same should be determined at half of the income of

the deceased and thus, the multiplicand was determined at

₹1,500/-. Giving due regard to the fact that the Appellant-Claimant

(mother of the deceased) was 48 years old at the time of the incident

and that the deceased was likely to have his own family in the

future, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 11 and consequently,

the loss of dependency was assessed at ₹1,98,000/- (₹1500 x 12 x

11).

9. Additionally, the Appellant-Claimant also made prayer for

reimbursement for the loss to the motorcycle to the tune of

₹25,670/-, by relying on the surveyor report marked as Ex. A.15

prepared by AW-8 Pankaj Sud. However, the Tribunal found the

said assessment of loss to be on the higher side, as it had been

made in January 2002, nearly two years after the accident, based

5 on the then prevailing prices of parts. Treating the matter as one of

total loss, and applying annual depreciation of 25% for the first

year and 20% for the second year, the value of the motorcycle was

assessed at about ₹20,000/- in the year 2000, considering that the

year of manufacture was 1998 and the vehicle was purchased in

January 1999. After deducting salvage value of ₹2,000/-, the

Tribunal held that the Appellant-Claimant was entitled to

₹18,000/- under this head for total loss of the motorcycle.

10. Further, the Tribunal awarded compensation under the

conventional non-pecuniary heads, thereby granting ₹2,500/-

towards loss of estate and ₹5,000/- towards funeral expenses, in

view of the fact that the dead body had to be brought from Mathura

for cremation. Thus, in total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of

₹2,23,000/- @9% interest p.a. under the following heads:

Heads Compensation Awarded Loss of Dependency ₹1,98,000/- (₹1,500 x 12 x 11) Motorcycle Damage ₹18,000/- Loss of Estate ₹2,500/- Funeral Expenses ₹5,000/- TOTAL ₹2,23,000/-

6

11. Out of the awarded amount, ₹1,00,000/- was directed to be

paid to the Appellant-Claimant immediately upon deposit, while

the remaining amount was ordered to be kept in a fixed deposit in

her name for a period of two years, considering that the Appellant-

Claimant would require the amount for the marriage of her

daughter, who was about 20 years old at the time of death of the

deceased; however, the Appellant-Claimant was permitted to

withdraw the monthly interest on the fixed deposit for her daily

needs after a period of one year.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT

12. In the appeal filed by Appellant-Claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation, the Appellant-Claimant contended

that the notional income of the deceased, who was an engineering

student, be assessed at ₹7,500/- per month, relying on the

judgment of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. and another, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 254.

The counsel for the Insurance Company, however, contended that

since the present accident pertained to the year 2000, ₹7,500/- per

month could not be taken as notional income. Finding merit in the 7 arguments advanced on both sides, the High Court consequently

determined the notional income of the deceased at ₹6,000/- per

month.

13. In light of the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma and

Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in

(2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 18 was adopted by the High

Court as the deceased was 22 years old. Additionally, the High

Court awarded a further sum of ₹22,500/- under the conventional

heads, thus taking the total amount to ₹30,000/- as against

₹7,500/- (₹2,500 + ₹5,000) awarded by the Tribunal. It refused to

enhance the amount awarded towards damage to the motorcycle,

upholding the sum of ₹18,000/- as the correct assessment.

14. The High Court held against grant of future prospects and

deduction towards personal expenses considering that the income

was notional. Deeming interest @9% as awarded by the Tribunal to

be highly excessive, the High Court reduced the rate of interest to

7.5% per annum, and thus, awarded a total compensation of

₹13,44,000/- to the Appellant-Claimant by way of the Impugned

Order.

8

15. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellant-Claimant

filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

16. In lieu of the passing away of the original Appellant-Claimant,

her daughter (the deceased’s sister) was impleaded as her legal

representative vide order dated 25.11.2025.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

17. The learned Counsel for the Appellant-Claimant has

vehemently submitted that the High Court gravely erred in

assessing the deceased’s notional income at only ₹6,000/- per

month despite uncontroverted evidence demonstrating that the

deceased was a bright and meritorious student in the final year of

mechanical engineering, had completed a diploma in plastic

engineering in first class, obtained one-year exemption in the

engineering course on that basis, possessed an AutoCAD

certification, and was independently earning ₹4,000/- per month

by imparting computer training. It was contended that the High

Court ignored binding precedents of this Court in Arvind Kumar

Mishra (supra) and Joginder Singh & Another vs. ICICI

9 Lombard General Insurance Co., reported in 2019 SCC OnLine

SC 1029, wherein substantially higher notional incomes were

assessed for similarly placed students. Accordingly, the learned

Counsel argued that the deceased’s income ought to have been

assessed at least at ₹15,000/- per month. It was further contended

that the High Court erred in denying future prospects solely

because the income assessed was notional, despite this Court

having awarded 40% future prospects on notional income of

students in Joginder Singh (supra).

18. The learned Counsel further stressed upon the inadequacy of

compensation awarded under conventional heads, submitting that

the High Court failed to properly account for the mental agony and

suffering of the Appellant-mother who lost her 22-year-old son, and

ought to have awarded compensation in line with the principles laid

down by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay

Sethi and Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma

General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram

and Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, including ₹15,000/-

towards loss of estate, ₹40,000/- towards parental consortium, and

10 ₹30,000/- towards funeral expenses instead of the meagre amount

granted.

19. It was further contended that the High Court unjustifiably

reduced the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum despite the

prolonged delay of almost 15 years in deciding the appeal, thereby

causing prejudice to the Appellant. Lastly, the learned Counsel

assailed the assessment of damage to the motorcycle, arguing that

the High Court wrongly upheld depreciation of the two-year-old

motorcycle to ₹20,000/- and salvage value at ₹2,000/-, whereas

the vehicle had been purchased for ₹42,000/- only two years prior

and ought to have been compensated at its full purchase price or,

in the alternative, on a substantially higher valuation.

20. Per contra, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3,

Insurance Company, sought dismissal of the appeal, submitting

that the deceased was merely a student and had no proven income

at the time of accident. It was submitted that the claim of earning

₹4,000/- per month through computer training having been rightly

disbelieved for want of substantive proof, and thus, the Appellant’s

reliance on judgments relating to higher notional income and

11 future prospects is unsustainable. It was additionally argued that

the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as the

Respondent Nos.1 and 2, driver/owner violated policy conditions.

ANALYSIS

21. Having considered the material available on record and the

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we

are of the opinion that although the High Court has enhanced the

compensation, the same is still on the lower side.

22. It is needless to state that the objective of awarding

compensation in motor accident claims is to ensure “just and

reasonable compensation” to the victim or the aggrieved

dependents of the deceased, not merely with a view to restoring the

Appellant-Claimant, So far as practicable, to the position existing

prior to the accident, but also to afford meaningful succour for the

pain, suffering, and loss occasioned by the injuries sustained or

the death of a loved one.

23. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at

₹3,000/-, which was increased to ₹6,000/- by the High Court.

While it is exceptionally difficult to quantify the potential of a young

12 student, this amount seems wholly inadequate for the deceased,

who was a bright Engineering student with promising prospects.

This Court in the case of Navjot Singh vs. Harpreet Singh and

Ors., reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1562, held that the notional

income of an engineering student cannot be equated to the

minimum wages paid to an unskilled worker. The relevant portion

of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:

“13. But we do not think that the notional income of a student undergoing a Degree course in Engineering from a premier institute should be taken to be equivalent to the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled worker. Students recruited through campus interviews are atleast offered a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Even if we do not go on the said basis, the High Court could have fixed the notional income atleast at Rs. 10,000/- per month.”

24. Even in the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra), this Court

has made the following observations about the prospects of an

engineering student:

“14. On completion of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from the prestigious institute like BIT, it can be reasonably assumed that he would have got a good job. The appellant has stated in his evidence that in the campus interview he was selected by Tata as well as Reliance Industries and was offered pay package of Rs. 3,50,000 per annum. Even if that is not accepted for want of any evidence in support thereof, there would not have been any difficulty for him in getting some decent job in the private sector. Had he decided to join government service and got selected, he would have been put in the pay scale for Assistant Engineer and would have at least earned Rs. 60,000 per annum. Wherever he joined, he had a fair chance of some

13 promotion and remote chance of some high position. But uncertainties of life cannot be ignored taking relevant factors into consideration. In our opinion, it is fair and reasonable to assess his future earnings at Rs. 60,000 per annum taking the salary and allowances payable to an Assistant Engineer in public employment as the basis. Since he suffered 70% permanent disability, the future earnings may be discounted by 30% and, accordingly, we estimate upon the facts that the multiplicand should be Rs. 42,000 per annum.”

25. Similarly, this Court in the case of Basanti Devi and Anr. vs.

Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.7435-7436 of 2021) upheld the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal’s assessment of the income of the

deceased, who was a 25-year old B.E. Computer Technology

graduate, at ₹20,000/- per month.

26. In the present case, the deceased, besides being a third-year

Mechanical Engineering student, had also successfully completed

a diploma course in Plastic Engineering and possessed certification

in AutoCAD. While there is no cogent evidence on record to

substantiate the claim that the deceased was earning ₹4,000/- per

month by imparting computer training, there can be little dispute

as to the fact that he was a meritorious student with considerable

academic promise and substantial future prospects. Having regard

to the aforesaid, we deem it appropriate to assess the monthly

14 income of the deceased at ₹12,000/-, considering that the death

occurred in the year 2000.

27. The High Court erroneously denied future prospects and

deduction towards personal and living expenses solely on grounds

that the income of the deceased in the instant case was notional.

This approach is contrary to the well-settled principles enunciated

in Sarla Verma (supra), and affirmed in Pranay Sethi (supra). Resultantly, 40% future prospects ought to be added to the

notional monthly income of ₹12,000/-, as the deceased fell within

the bracket of less than 40 years of age as per the law in Pranay

Sethi (supra). This would render an amount of ₹16,800/-, and one-

half of the said amount ought to be deducted towards personal and

living expenses, since the deceased was a bachelor, which brings

the monthly dependency to ₹8,400/- and the annual dependency

to ₹1,00,800/- (₹8,400 x 12). When a multiplier of 18, as rightly

adopted by the High Court, is applied to the said multiplicand, the

annual loss of dependency is computed at ₹18,14,400/- (₹1,00,800

x 18).

15

28. We are of the view that the compensation awarded by the High

Court under the conventional non-pecuniary heads also calls for

interference for being on the lower side. The Constitution Bench of

this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has provided the reasonable

figures of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- under the

conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and

funeral expenses, respectively.

29. Accordingly, we award a sum of ₹15,000/- towards loss of

estate. Further, a sum of ₹40,000/- is deemed just and reasonable

under the head of filial consortium, particularly in view of the law

laid down in Magma General Insurance (supra). In our considered

view, the Appellant-Claimant is also entitled to an amount of

₹30,000/- under the head of funeral expenses, especially when we

take stock of the fact that expenses were also incurred in

transporting the dead body from Agra to the deceased’s hometown

in Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

30. Insofar as the compensation towards damage to the

motorcycle is concerned, we are of the opinion that the loss ought

to be ascertained at ₹25,670/- in terms of the surveyor’s report,

16 and both the Tribunal as well as the High Court fell in error in fixing

the same at ₹18,000/-.

31. In light of the above discussion, the Appellant-Claimant is

entitled to compensation as follows:

Heads Compensation Awarded Loss of Dependency ₹18,14,400/- (₹8,400 x 12 x 18) Loss to the Estate ₹15,000/- Filial Consortium ₹40,000/- Funeral Expenses ₹30,000/- Motorcycle Damage ₹25,670/- TOTAL ₹19,25,070/-

32. On the issue of the rate of interest, we note that while the

Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum, the High

Court reduced the same to 7.5% per annum, which, in our

deliberate view, is reasonable and adequately serves the ends of

justice.

33. Thus, on the total compensation amount, the Appellant-

Claimant shall be entitled to interest @7.5% per annum from the

date of filing of the petition till the realization of the enhanced

compensation. The Respondents are jointly and severally liable to

17 pay the aforesaid compensation to the Appellant-Claimant within a

period of eight weeks from the date of this order.

34. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. All pending

application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

………………………., J.

(S.V.N. BHATTI)

………………………., J.

(VIJAY BISHNOI)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 12, 2026.

18