Subsequent death of a dependent during pendency does not justify reduction in motor accident compensation.

On April 30, 2010, Rahul Kaushik (aged 17) was hit by a motorcycle driven rashly by Respondent No. 2.

He succumbed to head injuries on October 19, 2010.

A claim petition was filed by his father (Anil Kumar Kaushik) and mother (Pratibha Kaushik); however, the mother passed away during the pendency of the proceedings.

On June 1, 2013, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’) awarded Rs. 26,55,000/- with 9% interest.

The Insurance Company appealed for a reduction, arguing a lack of dependency following the mother's death and challenging the use of minimum wages for a student.

The claimant filed a cross-appeal for enhancement, seeking a higher multiplier based on the deceased’s age and the application of future prospects under the Pranay Sethi guidelines.

The Court primarily applied the standardization principles for "just compensation" from National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), which governs future prospects, non-pecuniary heads, and the use of the multiplier.

It relied on New India Assurance Company v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand (2025) and MM Murthy v. State of Karnataka (2003) to establish that Supreme Court interpretations of law apply retrospectively to pending proceedings.

Regarding dependency, the Court followed Kirti Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2021), which mandates that legal liabilities crystallize at the time of the accident and are unaffected by the subsequent death of a dependent.

The Court also applied Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) regarding "filial consortium" for parents of deceased children.

The Court held that an appeal is a continuation of claim proceedings; therefore, the standardized parameters of Pranay Sethi must be applied to ensure "just compensation," notwithstanding that the original award predated 2017.

It rejected the insurer’s argument regarding dependency, noting that because the mother was alive at the time of the accident, her subsequent death did not mitigate the insurer's liability.

The Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of income based on minimum wages for a matriculate appropriate but corrected the multiplier from 15 (based on the father) to 18 (based on the deceased, aged 17).

Future prospects were increased from 30% to 40% as per the constitutional bench mandate in Pranay Sethi.

The Court further aligned non-pecuniary heads by awarding Rs. 15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses, while substituting the "loss of love and affection" head with "filial consortium" of Rs. 40,000/-.

It held that the multiplier must be based on the age of the deceased (18) and that the claimant is entitled to 40% future prospects.

The Court directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,30,500/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing within four weeks.

All other terms regarding the release of the award fixed by the Tribunal were maintained.