A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran has enhanced the compensation awarded to the parents of a 14-year-old boy who died in a motor accident, increasing the amount to Rs. 8,65,400/-. While determining the “just compensation,” the Court adopted the notional monthly income based on the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and awarded additional compensation for the pain and suffering endured by the victim before his death.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a tragic accident involving a 14-year-old boy who was proceeding to school with two classmates. A truck, driven “rashly and negligently,” hit them, resulting in the instantaneous death of the two classmates. The son of the appellants (claimants) survived the impact but succumbed to his injuries a day later in the hospital.
Initially, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded a sum of Rs. 1,29,500/- with 6% interest per annum. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimants approached the High Court. The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4,70,000/-, maintaining the 6% interest rate. Aggrieved by this enhancement as being inadequate, the parents approached the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Parties
Arguments for the Appellants: Mr. John Mathew, learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the High Court’s criteria were “grossly inadequate.” He submitted that evidence regarding the earnings of the deceased’s contemporaries had been produced. He further contended that a multiplier of 18 should be adopted, relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another (2024 INSC 963). In that case, a multiplier of 18 was applied for a seven-year-old child who suffered grievous injuries and permanent disability.
Arguments for the Respondents: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company, submitted that he had no objection to the adoption of minimum wages for calculating income. However, he argued that the multiplier should be restricted to 15, in accordance with the law laid down in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2013).
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court examined the applicability of the precedent cited by the appellants. Distinguishing the present case from Baby Sakshi Greola, the Bench observed:
“The facts in Baby Sakshi Greola (supra) are quite distinct from the present case. Here the child died and the claim of compensation by the parents would definitely stand on a different footing from that of a claim filed by a disabled child, destined to live the rest of his/her life with a debilitating condition of mental retardation and severe incontinence.”
The Court proceeded to re-compute the compensation by adopting the monthly notional income as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which both counsels agreed was Rs. 5,400/- per month for a Class B city.
The Bench applied the following parameters for calculation:
- Future Prospects: An addition of 40%.
- Multiplier: 15 (following Reshma Kumari).
- Deduction: One-half (1/2) towards personal expenses.
Significantly, the Court noted that since the victim survived for a day after the accident, the parents were entitled to compensation for his pain and suffering. The Court held:
“In the present case, the child had died after a day and hence the parents would be entitled to some compensation for the pain and suffering suffered by the child on his death; which inure to the benefit of the legal heirs, which we compute at Rs.25,000/-.”
The Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and modified the total compensation to Rs. 8,65,400/-. The computation provided in the judgment is as follows:
| Heads of Claim | Calculation | Amount |
| Loss of Dependency | Rs. 5400 x 12 x 140% x 15 x 1/2 | Rs. 6,80,400/- |
| Loss of Estate | – | Rs. 15,000/- |
| Loss of Consortium | Rs. 40,000/- x 2 | Rs. 80,000/- |
| Medical Expenses | – | Rs. 50,000/- |
| Funeral Expenses | – | Rs. 15,000/- |
| Pain and Suffering | – | Rs. 25,000/- |
| Total Amount | Rs. 8,65,400/- |
The Court directed the respondents to pay the enhanced amount (after deducting amounts already paid) within two months, with an interest rate of 7.5%.
Case Details
- Case Title: Devendra Kumar Tripathi & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
- Case No.: Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 2195 of 2024)
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1429
- Coram: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
- Counsel for Appellants: Mr. John Mathew
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey
