The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered in Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Kalu Ram (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 643 : 2026 INSC 653), examined the award of compensation under the head of filial consortium in cases involving the death of an unmarried son. The Court held that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being beneficial legislation, requires courts to ensure 'just compensation' even when a conventional head like filial consortium has been omitted by lower forums. It observed that the parents of a deceased unmarried son are entitled to compensation under this head. Consequently, the compensation was enhanced by Rs. 40,000 each to both parents, amounting to a total of Rs. 80,000. The Court reaffirmed that it does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Tribunal and High Court unless such findings are perverse, manifestly erroneous, or based on no evidence, relying on precedents such as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others [(2018) 18 SCC 130].
In the same judgment, the Court considered a case where a stationary truck was left unattended in the middle of the road at 3:00 a.m. without parking lights, indicators, reflectors, or warning signs, and was subsequently hit from behind by a Wagon-R car. The Court held that the mere fact of a rear-end collision does not automatically imply negligence or contributory negligence on the part of the moving vehicle. It emphasized that a stationary vehicle occupying the road in the dead of night without any warning signs constitutes an evident hazard. Since the truck driver and owner did not testify to substantiate their claim of tyre puncture, the adverse inference drawn by the Tribunal was justified. The Court concluded that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligent act of leaving the vehicle unattended on the road without taking precautionary measures.
The Court further addressed the computation of future prospects in compensation claims, particularly in the case of a 20-year-old bachelor pursuing Chartered Accountancy (Final) and undergoing articleship who died in an accident. The Tribunal had departed from the actual stipend income and assessed the monthly income at Rs. 55,500 by factoring in the deceased’s educational profile, professional trajectory, and imminent entry into the CA profession. The Court held that while compensation cannot be based on pure speculation or unrelated salary benchmarks, the determination of 'just compensation' does not require mathematical exactitude. It found that the Tribunal’s forward-looking assessment sufficiently accounted for the deceased’s professional potential. The Court also held that reducing compensation due to a technical overlap in methodology—such as adding 50% future prospects over a forward-looking multiplicand—would not serve substantive justice, especially given the long passage of time since the accident.
Additionally, the Court considered a claim for permanent disability where the claimant suffered an above-the-knee amputation. It held that such a condition necessitates continuous medical assistance, rehabilitation, and periodic replacement or maintenance of the prosthesis throughout the claimant’s lifespan. Accordingly, the compensation under this head was enhanced from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000. The Court relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another [(2011) 1 SCC 343] for this proposition.
The Court also clarified a procedural point regarding the calculation of future prospects: when an appellate court enhances the base monthly income of a claimant, the percentage towards future prospects must be calculated on the revised or recalculated income, rather than being mechanically applied to the lower income initially assessed by the Tribunal. This ensures that the enhancement in base income is properly reflected in the prospective loss calculation.