Just compensation may reflect demonstrated educational and professional potential beyond a deceased student’s actual earnings.

The appellants, parents of the deceased Brajesh Kumar, challenged the Judgment and Award dated 14.02.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro, in T.M.V. No. 95 of 2007, seeking enhancement of compensation.

The deceased was 25 years old, had completed a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree, was pursuing an MCA at Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi, and earned approximately ₹4,000 per month through private tuition.

The Tribunal awarded ₹5,44,000, but did not grant an addition for future prospects and deducted only one-third of the income towards personal expenses.

The Insurance Company contended that the deceased was a bachelor and that 50% ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses.

During the appeal, an Amicus Curiae assisted the Court because the appellants’ counsel had withdrawn and the appellants were unrepresented.

Whether the deceased’s income should be assessed above the proved monthly tuition income of ₹4,000 by taking into account his educational qualifications, admission to the MCA course, earning capacity, and future prospects?

Whether, as the deceased was an unmarried bachelor, 50% rather than one-third should be deducted towards his personal expenses?

Whether the compensation required enhancement by applying the appropriate multiplier and awarding amounts under consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate?

The Court applied the principles in Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, relating to future prospects, deduction towards personal expenses, multiplier selection, and conventional heads of compensation.

For an unmarried deceased, 50% of income is ordinarily deducted towards personal expenses.

For a deceased aged 25 years, the applicable multiplier is 18.

The Court also relied on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalu Ram, 2026 INSC 653, holding that “just compensation” cannot be determined through sterile mathematical calculation alone; the Court may consider the deceased’s demonstrated earning potential, educational trajectory, and professional prospects, but cannot base compensation on conjecture or assured future success unsupported by evidence.

Compensation must therefore be fair and holistic, while remaining founded on reasonable inferences from the evidence.

The Court accepted ₹4,000 per month as the deceased’s actual tuition income because it was pleaded by the claimants and supported by the evidence of his students, which remained unshaken in cross-examination.

However, the deceased had already obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree, had secured admission to the MCA course at a premier institute, and had demonstrated both academic ability and earning capacity through private tuition.

Applying the principle of just compensation and the guidance in Kalu Ram, the Court held that a bare 40–50% statutory-style increase would not adequately reflect the factual circumstances, while an assessment based on speculative professional success would also be impermissible.

It accordingly fixed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹10,000, treating that figure as a conservative assessment inclusive of future prospects.

Since he was a bachelor, the Court deducted 50%, resulting in a dependency income of ₹5,000 per month or ₹60,000 per annum. Applying multiplier 18, the loss of dependency was calculated at ₹10,80,000.

The Court further awarded ₹40,000 to each parent towards consortium, ₹15,000 towards funeral expenses, and ₹15,000 towards loss of estate.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount, after adjustment of sums already deposited, within six weeks and to communicate compliance through the Amicus Curiae and JHALSA.

The appellants were permitted to withdraw the amount through verified bank accounts, and JHALSA and the DLSA, Bokaro, were directed to assist in ensuring payment and to file a compliance report.

The appeal was allowed without costs.