In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has substantially increased the compensation awarded to the grieving parents of a 14-year-old boy who lost his life in a tragic road accident. The apex court emphasized the profound 'pain and suffering' endured by the child before his death, a factor it deemed crucial in recalculating the financial award.
Court Details and Tragic Incident
A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Vinod Chandran delivered the verdict on December 15, 2025. The court was hearing an appeal filed by the parents against the earlier judgments of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and a High Court.
The case stemmed from a heartbreaking incident where a 14-year-old boy, on his way to school with two classmates, was hit by a rashly and negligently driven truck. The two classmates died on the spot, while the appellants' son succumbed to his injuries a day later in the hospital. The legal battle centered on determining adequate compensation for the irreparable loss suffered by the parents.
From 'Meagre' to Enhanced Compensation
The Supreme Court bench was critical of the initial compensation granted by the MACT, which it described as "meagre." The Tribunal had originally awarded Rs 1.29 lakh to the parents. This amount was later enhanced by the High Court to Rs 4.7 lakh.
However, the Supreme Court found this sum still insufficient. The justices made a pivotal observation regarding the child's ordeal. "The child had died after a day and hence the parents would be entitled to some compensation for the pain and suffering suffered by the child on his death; which inure to the benefit of the legal heirs," the bench stated. It specifically computed an additional Rs 25,000 under this head.
After a comprehensive recalculation, the top court directed a total compensation of Rs 8.65 lakh to be paid to the parents. The court ordered that this amount, after deducting any sums already paid, must be disbursed within two months from the date of the order, along with an interest rate of 7.5 percent per annum.
Legal Arguments and Computation Methodology
During the proceedings, Advocate John Mathew, representing the parents, argued that the High Court's criteria were grossly inadequate. He presented evidence regarding the potential future earnings of the victim's contemporaries to justify a higher compensation.
Advocate Ranjan Kumar Pandey, appearing for the insurance company involved, agreed to the adoption of the minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for computing the notional income. However, he insisted on applying a multiplier of 15, as established in the Supreme Court's precedent in the Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan case for victims aged up to 15 years.
The bench accepted this methodology and distinguished this case from those involving permanently disabled children. It clarified that a claim by parents for a deceased child stands on a fundamentally different footing than a claim by a child destined to live with severe disabilities.
In its final computation, the court retained a provision of Rs 50,000 for medical expenses. Furthermore, it granted Rs 15,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses, and Rs 40,000 each to the parents for loss of filial consortium, acknowledging the emotional and personal devastation of losing a child.
This ruling reinforces the judiciary's role in ensuring that compensation in motor accident cases is not merely a statutory formality but a meaningful attempt to address, albeit monetarily, the profound grief and loss experienced by families. It sets a precedent for giving due weight to the agony suffered by the victim in the final moments, directly benefiting the legal heirs.
