In determining compensation for a deceased professional without documented earnings, tribunals must assign notional income based on educational qualifications and professional potential rather than arbitrary standards, while ensuring judicial parity with similar cases to provide just and consistent restitution to the survivors.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Death in motor accident - Determination of compensation - Quantum of compensation - Deceased was an engineering graduate - Determination of notional income - Absence of empirical proof of income does not preclude assessment based on professional standing - Tribunal erred in fixing conservative income without considering academic qualifications - Appellate court must ensure parity in awards for similarly situated victims of the same incident. (Paras 6, 9, 10, 11)

(B) Calculation of damages - Future prospects - Multiplier method - In cases of young professional victims, notional income should reflect professional capacity - Consistency in adjudication necessitates applying similar yardsticks for parity between victims involved in the same occurrence. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The claimants, parents of a deceased twenty-six-year-old engineering graduate, appealed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The tribunal had calculated the quantum based on a conservative notional income, citing a lack of proof of earnings, despite the deceased holding a degree in engineering.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the tribunal failing to acknowledge the academic credentials of the deceased resulted in inadequate compensation. Aligning with judicial trends and established precedents involving similar victims, the court revised the notional income upward and adjusted the total compensation to reflect just and reasonable standards.

Issues: The main issues were the determination of appropriate notional income for a young professional in the absence of formal income documentation and the requirement for consistency in compensation between deceased victims of the same motor accident.

Ratio Decidendi: In assessing compensation for a young professional, courts must balance statutory guidelines with the actual potential of the deceased. A failure to consider academic qualifications leads to manifest injustice. Maintaining parity for similarly placed victims ensures the uniformity of compensation awards, upholding the principle of 'just compensation'.

Result: Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced.

JUDGMENT

(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

Challenging the findings of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

2. The claimants are the father and mother of the deceased Arun Kumar, who was aged about 26 years at the time of accident. While he was riding motor-cycle bearing Registration No.TN-30-BH-3210, along with his friend (pillion rider), and when they came to extreme left side of the Varadharajapuram Mudakku Salai, an Eicher Lorry (offending lorry) bearing Registration No.KA-01-A-7667, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction, without following the traffic rules, and hit the two-wheeler, due to which, both of them sustained grievous injuries and they have succumbed to injuries. The deceased who was aged about 26 years, had completed B.E. course. Therefore, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.40 lakhs to them being the dependants of the deceased .

3. The Insurance Company took a defence to the effect that the deceased was riding the motor-cycle without driving licence and the same has been negatived by the Tribunal, which found that it was the lorry driver who was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, which had resulted in the accident. As against the negligent aspect, no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. While fixing the compensation, the Tribunal took notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- on the ground that there is no proof of income produced by the claimants. Though the deceased was an Engineering Graduate, ultimately, the Tribunal fixed the following compensation under various heads:

Loss of income = Rs.10,20,000/-

Loss of love and affection = Rs.40,000/-

Medical expenses = Rs.90,000/-

Funeral expenses = Rs.25,000/-

----------------------

Total Rs.11,75,000/-

-----------------------

Challenging the above said quantum of compensation, the appellants/claimants have filed the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in respect of the compensation claimed by the pillion rider, this Court, in C.M.A.No.898 of 2025 ( Rajkumar and 2 others Vs. Munikrishna and another ), by judgment dated 17.12.2025, had fixed the income at Rs.25,000/-, since the pillion rider was also an Engineering Graduate.

5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that even the accident occurred in the year 2010 and the Honourable Supreme Court, in a similar case, fixed the notional income at Rs.30,000/- per month and that the Tribunal had erred in neglecting the Degree course provisional certificate to show that the deceased was an Engineering Graduate. The negligent aspect is not disputed, and only with regard to the quantum for enhancement of the compensation, this appeal is filed by the parents of the deceased as claimants.

6. On a perusal of the materials available on record, it is not disputed that the deceased was aged 26 years at the time of accident and was an Engineering Graduate. Ex.P-6 (provisional certificate) is also filed to prove that the deceased was an Engineering Graduate at the relevant point of time. Ex.P-7 - B.E. degree certificate is also produced to show that he is an Engineering Graduate. However, the Tribunal, without considering the aspect of the deceased being an Engineering Graduate, had taken the notional income at Rs.10,000/- on the ground that no proof of income on the part of the deceased, is produced by the claimants.

7. It is relevant to note that a Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.898 of 2025 ( Rajkumar and 2 others Vs. Munikrishna and another ), dated 17.12.2025, in regard to the pillion rider, had fixed the notional income at Rs.25,000/- and in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said judgment, the Division Bench, held as under:

"5. As has been held by a Division Bench in the judgment reported in 2021 1 TNMAC 727 in the case of New India Assurance Limited Vs. Mr.K.Velmurugan, the notional income of the Engineering fina

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18090

Cases Referred (1)