Mother Of 25-Year-Old Killed In Crash Gets Rs4.48 Lakh Compensation After P&H HC Raises Award From Rs1.5 Lakh

Both appeals challenged a common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, arising from a 5 November 1996 accident caused by the negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-IP-9439.

Ashish sought enhancement of the ₹50,000 awarded for his injuries; Shakuntla, the mother of deceased Ajay, sought enhancement of the ₹1,50,000 awarded for his death.

Negligence was not challenged in these appeals; the dispute concerned quantum.

Ashish, then a Class 12 student, had suffered multiple injuries but no permanent disability was proved.

In Shakuntla’s claim, the Tribunal had assessed Ajay’s monthly income at ₹2,500; the claimants asserted that he was 25 and earned ₹5,000 per month as a driver, but produced no cogent evidence of that income or occupation.

The Court applied the principles in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, for adding future prospects, and Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121, for selection of the multiplier and deduction for personal expenses.

For a deceased aged 25, the Court applied a multiplier of 18, added 40% for future prospects, and deducted 50% for personal expenses where the deceased was unmarried.

It also awarded conventional sums for funeral expenses, loss of estate, and filial consortium, while noting that the claimant could seek any further amount if the Supreme Court decided the reference in Hasina Yasmin v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2919, in her favour.

For Ashish, the Court considered his injuries, hospitalisation, medical expenditure, and bed-rest advice, and concluded that increased compensation was justified for loss of studies and pain and suffering, together with a consolidated amount for medical expenses, special diet, attendant charges, and transportation.

It fixed total compensation at ₹80,000, an increase of ₹30,000 over the Tribunal’s award.

For Ajay’s death, the Court retained the Tribunal’s monthly income assessment of ₹2,500 because the asserted higher income and driving occupation were unsupported by reliable evidence.

Applying the stated future-prospects, multiplier, and deduction principles, it calculated dependency at ₹3,78,000 and added ₹70,000 under conventional heads, producing total compensation of ₹4,48,000.

Ashish was awarded ₹80,000 in total, with interest at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation.

Shakuntla was awarded ₹4,48,000 in total, with an enhancement of ₹2,98,000; interest at 7.5% per annum applies from the date of filing on the enhanced amount except for conventional heads, on which interest runs from August 2017 until realisation.

Apportionment and liability remained as set out in the Tribunal’s award.