Motor Accident Compensation Claim By Parents Of Deceased Child Stands On Different Footing From Disabled Child’s Claim: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering the appeal of the aggrieved parents of the boy.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has observed that the claim of compensation by the parents of a dead child would stand on a different footing from that of a claim filed by a disabled child, destined to live the rest of his/her life with a debilitating condition of mental retardation.
The Apex Court granted enhanced compensation of over Rs 8 lakh to the parents of a 14-year-old boy who died in a motor accident.
The Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “The facts in Baby Sakshi Greola (supra) are quite distinct from the present case. Here the child died and the claim of compensation by the parents would definitely stand on a different footing from that of a claim filed by a disabled child, destined to live the rest of his/her life with a debilitating condition of mental retardation and severe incontinence.”
Advocate John Mathew represented the Appellant while AOR Ranjan Kumar Pandey represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
A 14-year-old boy, proceeding to school with two of his classmates, met with an accident when a truck driven rashly and negligently took their lives. The son of the appellants died a day after, in the hospital while the two school mates died on the spot. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the claim petition of the parents granted Rs 1,29,500 with interest. On a claim for enhancement being made before the High Court, the High Court enhanced it to Rs 4,70,000 again with interest.
Arguments
It was the appellants’ case that there was sufficient evidence produced with respect to the earning of persons, who studied along with the deceased and went on to take up different gainful employments.It was also submitted that a multiplier of 18 had to be adopted. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another (2024), where a seven-year-old child had suffered grievous injuries and was rendered disabled, wherein the multiplier of 18 was adopted.
Reasoning
The Bench found that the facts in Baby Sakshi Greola (supra) were distinct from the case at hand. The Bench was of the view that the monthly notional income could be adopted as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which both for a Class B city, would be Rs 5400 per month.
“A 40% increase has to be adopted for future prospects and the multiplier is 15 as held in Reshma Kumari (supra) and one-half deduction for personal expenses. The provision of Rs.50,000/- as medical expenses is retained”, it added. As per the Bench, the claimants were further entitled to loss of estate and funeral expenses at the rate of Rs 15,000 each and loss of filial consortium at the rate of Rs 40,000 each.
Considering the fact that the child had died after a day, the Bench held that the parents would be entitled to some compensation for the pain and suffering suffered by the child on his death, which would inure to the benefit of the legal heirs. The same was computed at Rs 25,000.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench awarded an enhanced amount of Rs 8,65,400. “The above amount shall be paid to the appellants, after deducting the amount already paid, within a period of two months from the date of this order with interest at the rate of 7.5%...”, it held.
Cause Title: Devendra Kumar Tripathi v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1429)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR John Mathew
Respondent: AOR Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Advocate Sandeep Bisht