Parents of Deceased CA Student Receive Enhanced ₹82.01 Lakh Compensation from Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has slightly increased the compensation awarded to the parents of a young Chartered Accountancy (CA) student who lost his life in a road accident in Delhi in 2013. While dismissing the insurance company's challenge to the award, the Court held that the parents were also entitled to compensation for the loss of their son's companionship and affection, known in law as "filial consortium."

Background of the Case

The case arose from a fatal road accident that took place on June 11, 2013, near Andrews Ganj Bus Stop on Delhi's BRT Corridor. Akash Kumar, a 20-year-old CA Final student, was travelling in a Wagon-R car when it collided with a truck parked on the road during the early hours of the morning. According to the claimants, the truck had been left on the roadway without parking lights, reflectors, indicators, or warning signs.

Akash succumbed to his injuries, and his parents subsequently approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹81.21 lakh in 2017. Both the insurer and the claimants challenged the award before the Delhi High Court, which upheld the Tribunal's findings. The dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court through cross-appeals.

Court's Observation on Negligence

A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and the High Court regarding negligence.

The Court noted that the testimony of the injured eyewitness established that the truck had been stationed on the road without adequate warning measures.

“The accident having occurred at about 3:00 a.m., the absence of such warning measures assumes significance,”

the Bench observed.

Rejecting the insurer's argument that the Wagon-R driver was responsible for the collision, the Court clarified that merely because a vehicle hits another from behind does not automatically establish negligence on the part of the rear vehicle's driver.

The Bench further observed that the truck driver and owner had not entered the witness box to support their defence, allowing the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against them.

Compensation Assessment

The insurer also questioned the compensation awarded, arguing that the Tribunal had assessed the deceased's income on speculative grounds.

The Court acknowledged that Akash was still pursuing his CA qualification and earning only a stipend during his articleship. However, it noted that the Tribunal had carefully considered his educational achievements and professional prospects while estimating his future earning capacity.

Although the Court pointed out a technical overlap in the methodology adopted by the Tribunal while calculating future prospects, it declined to reduce the compensation.

“The loss suffered by the parents of the deceased cannot be measured with arithmetical precision,”

the Bench observed while emphasizing the principle of "just compensation" under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Filial Consortium Awarded

The Supreme Court found that neither the Tribunal nor the High Court had granted compensation under the conventional head of filial consortium, which recognizes the emotional loss suffered by parents on the death of a child.

Referring to earlier decisions, including Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance, the Court held that the parents were entitled to such compensation.

Accordingly, the Bench awarded ₹40,000 each to the deceased's parents towards filial consortium, resulting in an additional ₹80,000 over and above the existing award.

Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal and partly allowed the claimants' appeal. The total compensation payable to the parents was enhanced from ₹81,21,900 to ₹82,01,900, along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within four weeks.

Case Details:

Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kalu Ram & Others

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 8706 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2360 of 2023) along with Civil Appeal No. 8707 of 2026

Judge: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria

Decision Date: June 23, 2026