/2022 INSC 0896/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7180  OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10206 of 2020]
S. VASANTHI & ANR.          ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S ADHIPARASAKTHI ENGG. 
COLLEGE AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated
31 st
  January, 2020, passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Madras in CMA No. 2518 of 2016.
3. The   facts,   in   brief,   giving   rise   to   the   present   appeal
are as under:
3.1 On 22 nd
 May, 2010, S. Sathiyanarayan was riding on
a  Bajaj  Avenger  motorcycle,  bearing  registration  No.  TN­04­
S­6492,   at   GST   Road,   Tambaram.   While   he   was   travelling
from the south to north direction by the western side of the
road,   a   bus   owned   by   M/s   Adhiparasakthi   Engineering
College   (respondent   no.   1   herein),   bearing   registration   No.
1

TN­21­H­2727,   which   was   being   driven   rashly   and
negligently,   came   from   the   same   direction   and   dashed
against   his   motor   cycle   from   the   backside,   thus   dragging
him   under   the   wheels   of   the   bus.   S.   Sathiyanarayan
perished on the spot. 
3.2 Thereafter,   the   bereaved   parents   of   the   deceased,
who   are   the   appellants   herein,   filed   a   claim   petition   before
the   Motor   Accident   Claims   Tribunal,   Poonamallee
(hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being M.C.O.P. No. 1201 of
2010,   for   grant   of   compensation   to   the   tune   of
Rs.   30,00,000/­   with   interest,   on   account   of   the   death   of
their son.
3.3 The   Tribunal,   noting   that   the   deceased   S.
Sathiyanarayan   was,   at   the   time   of   the   accident,   twenty­
three   years   of   age   and   a   student   in   the   second   year   of   the
MBA course at SRM University, passed an award amounting
to  Rs. 7,48,052/­ as compensation with  interest  at  the rate
of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date
of   realization.   Pertinently,   the   Tribunal   fixed   the   notional
monthly   income   of   the   deceased   at   Rs.   7,000/­   per   month,
2

since   he   was   not   earning   any   salary   at   the   time   of   the
accident. 
4. Aggrieved   by   the   amount   of   compensation   so
awarded, the appellants herein carried an appeal to the High
Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.
5. Noting that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal
was   meagre,   the   High   Court   enhanced   the   notional   income
to   a   sum   of   Rs.   10,000/­  per  month.   Thus,   the   High   Court
enhanced   the   compensation   from   Rs.   7,48,052/­   to
Rs.   16,27,000/­.   Within   that   amount,   the   High   Court   also
enhanced the amount of loss of dependency, loss of love and
affection as well as funeral expenses, and further granted an
amount of Rs. 15,000/­ as loss of estate.
6. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
7. We   have   heard   Mr.   T.   Harish   Kumar,   learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. A. K.
De,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   respondent   No.
2­United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 
8. Mr.   T.   Harish   Kumar,   learned   counsel   for   the
appellants,   submits   that   both   the   Tribunal   and   the   High
3

Court have grossly erred in calculating the notional monthly
income of the deceased   S. Sathiyanarayan   at the rate of Rs.
10,000/­.   He   submits   that   the   High   Court   ought   to   have
considered that S. Vasanthi ­ appellant No. 1, in an affidavit
filed   by   her   before   the   Tribunal,   had   stated   that   two
classmates   of   her   deceased   son   would   go   on   to   get
employment   with   reputed   companies   in   India   on   a   monthly
salary   of   approximately   Rs.   40,000/­.   The   learned   counsel
submits   that   appellant   No.   1   had,   in   fact,   produced   the
salary   certificates   of   the   said   two   classmates   with   her
affidavit.   The   learned   counsel   therefore   submits   that   the
deceased   S.  Sathiyanarayan,   being  an  engineering  graduate
who   was   pursuing   an   MBA   degree   to   further   his   career,
would have attracted well­paying jobs had he been alive. The
learned counsel therefore submits that the notional monthly
income   of   the   deceased   S.   Sathiyanarayan   should   be
enhanced to Rs. 42842/­. The learned Counsel relies on the
judgment of this Court in the case of   Kurvan Ansari Alias
Kurvan Ali and Another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and
Another 1
, in support of his contention.
1  (2022) 1 SCC 317
4

9. Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents
contend   that   both   the   Tribunal   and   the   High   Court   were
correct   in   assessing   the   notional   income   at   the   rate   of
Rs. 7,000/­ and Rs. 10,000/­ per month respectively, as the
deceased   S. Sathiyanarayan  was not yet in employment and
was merely a second­year student of his MBA course at that
time.
10. A   perusal   of   the   affidavit   filed   by   appellant   No.   1
before   the   Tribunal   would   reveal   that   she   had   specifically
stated   that   two   of   her   son’s   classmates   were   gainfully
employed   with   well­known   companies   in   India   and   were
drawing   monthly   income   of   Rs.   39,869/­   and   Rs.   44,588/­
respectively.   It   will   be   relevant   to   note   that   neither   the
Tribunal   nor   the   High   Court   has   adverted   to   these
averments made by appellant No. 1. 
11. It   could   thus   be   seen   that   the   deceased   S.
Sathiyanarayan   was twenty­three years of age at the time of
the   accident.   He   was   a   qualified   engineering   graduate   and
was   pursuing   an   MBA   degree   at   SRM   University   to   further
his   professional   capabilities.   In   view   of   the   specific
averments   made   in   the   affidavit   as   to   the   employment
5

prospects   of   the   classmates   of   the   deceased   S.
Sathiyanarayan   and   also   his   young   age   at   the   time   of   the
accident,   we   are   of   the   considered   view   that   the   Tribunal
and   the   High   Court   have   erred   in   not   giving   due   weightage
to   the   same.   Had   the   deceased   S.   Sathiyanarayan   not   met
with  the  unfortunate  accident,  he  would   have  surely  drawn
a   salary   equivalent   to   that   of   his   classmates   or   at   least   an
amount   near   the   said   amount.   Furthermore,   the   deceased
was the only issue of the appellants. Since no parent should
have to suffer through the death of their children, much less
their   only   child,   we   are   of   the   considered   view   that   the
monthly   income   as   calculated   by   the   High   Court   is
inadequate. 
12. Thus,   we   find   that   the   compensation   to   be   paid   on
account of the death of deceased  S. Sathiyanarayan  ought to
be   worked   out   by   enhancing   his   monthly   income   to   Rs.
30,000/­.  However, we find that, since he was the only child
of the appellants, in view of paragraphs (31) and (32) of the
judgment in the case of  Sarla Varma (Smt.) and Others v.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 2
, as upheld by
2   (2009) 6 SCC 121
6

a   Constitution   Bench   decision   in   the   case   of   National
Insurance   Company   Limited   v.   Pranay   Sethi   and
Others 3
,   50%   of   the   amount   would   have   to   be   deducted   as
personal   and  living   expenses.     We   further  find   that,   insofar
as   the   loss   of   consortium   is   concerned,   an   amount   of   Rs.
40,000/­   will   have   to   be   awarded.   The   compensation   on
account   of   the   death   of   the   deceased   S.   Sathiyanarayan   is,
therefore, being reassessed as under:
Sr. No. Heads Calculation
1. Income Rs. 30,000/­ per month
2. 40%   to   be   added   to
Future Prospects 30,000/­ + 12,000/­  =  
Rs. 42,000/­ per month
3. 1/2   deducted   towards
personal expenses 42,000/2 =  Rs. 21,000/­
4. Yearly Income [(Sl. No.2­
Sl. No. 3) x 12] 21,000 x 12  =                
Rs. 2,52,000/­
5. Compensation   after
Multiplier 2,52,000 x 18  =             
Rs. 45,36,000/­
6. Conventional Head
(Funeral   Expense   and
Loss of Estate) Rs. 30,000/­
7. Loss of Consortium
Rs. 40,000/­ 
3   (2017) 16 SCC 680
7

8. Transportation
Expenses Rs. 5,000/­
 Total   Compensation
Awarded (5+6+7+8) Rs. 46,11,000/­
 Enhanced   amount   of
Compensation   from
MACT 
(Rs. 7,48,052/­) 46,11,000­7,48,052 =     
Rs. 38,62,948/­
 Enhanced   amount   of
Compensation from HC
(Rs. 16,27,000/­) 46,11,000 – 16,27,000 =   
Rs. 29,84,000/­
13. The   enhanced   compensation   of   Rs.   29,84,000/­
along   with   interest   at   the   rate   of   7.5%   per   annum   shall   be
paid to the appellants within a period of three months from
the date of this judgment. 
14. The   appeal   is   allowed   in   the   aforesaid   terms.   No
order  as to  costs . Pending  application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
…..….......................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
.…….......................J.       
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 11, 2022.
8