Madras HC Upholds ₹49.25 Lakh Award for Parents of 23-Year-Old MBBS House Surgeon, Rejects Insurer’s ₹45,000 Income Challenge

The deceased, Prasathkumar, died in a road accident on 17 March 2018 while travelling in a car that collided with a lorry.

The Tribunal found the lorry driver 70% negligent and the car driver 30% negligent.

It assessed the deceased’s notional monthly income at ₹30,000, added 50% for future prospects, applied a multiplier of 18, deducted 50% for personal expenses, and awarded a total of ₹49,25,000, including compensation for loss of income, loss of love and affection, and funeral expenses.

The insurer appealed, contending that the income assessment was excessive because the deceased was an MBBS student and his claimed earnings as a house surgeon were unsupported by documentary evidence.

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeal under Section 173.

The Court applied the principle that compensation must be just and fair, assessing income and future prospects in light of the evidence and the deceased’s circumstances.

The claimants relied on Nagappa v. Gurudayal, (2003) 2 SCC 274, and Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto, 2023 (1) SCC 204, for the proposition that a tribunal may award just compensation exceeding the amount claimed; they also cited Bishnupriya Panda v. Basanti Manjari Mohanty, 2023 ACJ 2393, and Madhavi v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 Law Finder (SC) 3047, concerning notional income for deceased MBBS students.

The Court held that those decisions did not support the claimants on the facts of this case.

The Court noted that the claimants had produced no documentary proof of the deceased’s alleged monthly earnings of ₹45,000 as a house surgeon.

However, his marks statement showed that he was pursuing the house-surgeon course, and his driving licence supported the finding that he was about 23 years old at the time of the accident.

In view of his medical studies and the accident date, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s notional income of ₹30,000 per month, the 50% addition for future prospects, the multiplier of 18, and the 50% deduction for personal expenses.

It also found the amounts awarded under the other heads reasonable and declined to apply the cited MBBS-student decisions because their facts differed.

It directed the appellant insurer to deposit the compensation, together with interest and costs, within six weeks; the claimants could withdraw the amount, less any sum already withdrawn, in accordance with the Tribunal’s disbursement order.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was dismissed.