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)
THROUGH L.R.
….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BRIJ LAL ARORA AND
ORS.

…RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T

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. Sarla Verma and
In light of the judgment of this Court in
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
Pranay Sethi
this Court in (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