Facts
On December 28, 2009, Rajeev, a third-year B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) student, died after being hit by an offending vehicle.
Source reference: p. 1-2The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Rohini, awarded the parents (appellants) a compensation of Rs. 18,09,787/- with 9% interest per annum on March 31, 2016.
Source reference: p. 1The appellants sought enhancement of this compensation, arguing for higher prospective income based on testimonies from the deceased’s batchmates, and adjustment of the multiplier and non-pecuniary damages.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the notional income of a deceased engineering student should be enhanced based on the subsequent salaries of batchmates.
Source reference: p. 2, para 42. Whether the multiplier and future prospects were correctly applied in accordance with established legal precedents.
Source reference: p. 2, para 83. Whether the interest rate and non-pecuniary heads (consortium, funeral expenses, etc.) require realignment.
Source reference: p. 2-3, para 11-14Law Applied
The Court followed the principles of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) regarding future prospects (40% for those under 40 years) and standardized non-pecuniary heads.
Source reference: p. 2-3It applied S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025) to determine the notional income of an engineering student.
Source reference: p. 2The court utilized the multiplier of 18 for the age group of the deceased as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, departing from the Tribunal’s use of the father's age.
Source reference: p. 2Regarding parental consortium, it relied on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur (2021).
Source reference: p. 3Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) was cited to link the interest rate to nationalized bank FD rates.
Source reference: p. 3Reasoning
The Court rejected the plea to increase notional income to Rs. 35,000/- (based on batchmate testimonies from 2014) because the accident occurred in 2009; it held the Tribunal’s estimate of Rs. 25,000/- was "just and reasonable" in light of the Hakkim precedent.
Source reference: p. 2The Court corrected the multiplier from 11 to 18, noting it must be based on the deceased's age, not the parents'.
Source reference: p. 2Under Pranay Sethi guidelines, the Court added 40% for future prospects and realigned non-pecuniary damages: deleting "loss of love and affection," adding "filial consortium" of Rs. 80,000 (40,000 per parent), and adjusting funeral/estate expenses.
Source reference: p. 3Regarding interest, the Court lowered the rate for the enhanced portion to 7.5% to match 2010 bank rates but maintained 9% for the original award due to the 15-year pendency.
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Court held that the multiplier for a bachelor must be 18 and future prospects of 40% must be included.
The Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing the total compensation from Rs. 18,09,787/- to Rs. 39,09,787/-.
Source reference: p. 5The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- with 7.5% interest within four weeks; release of Rs. 5,00,000/- was ordered as a lump sum to the claimants, with the remainder to be secured in monthly Fixed Deposit Receipts of Rs. 25,000/- each.
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
Ram Dutt & AnrvsSube Singh & Ors (Iffco Tokio General Ins Co Ltd)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in