In a brief yet intense hearing on Thursday, the Supreme Court stepped in to revise the compensation awarded to the family of a young man who died in a 2008 road accident near Mansa, Punjab. The bench, hearing the appeal filed by Ajmer Kaur and her three family members, pointed out several gaps in the earlier award calculation. What followed was a practical, almost conversational exchange between the judges and the lawyers, capturing the exact spirit of a courtroom where equity often wrestles with arithmetic.
Background
The family had originally approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), which fixed a monthly income of ₹2,500 for the deceased. The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld that figure and even reduced interest from 8% to 6%. But the family insisted the amount didn’t reflect the deceased’s real earnings. His mother had earlier testified that her son sold milk in addition to daily-wage work. The family had been fighting for recognition of these facts for nearly 17 years.
The appeal before the Supreme Court wasn’t about reopening the entire compensation dispute; the appellants focused on three narrow issues - the deceased’s income, denial of filial consortium (a legal term for compensation paid to siblings or children for loss of companionship), and the reduced interest rate.
Court’s Observations
Right from the start, the Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra signalled that the High Court’s assessment might have fallen short.
“The income computed as ₹2,500 was in the teeth of the evidence,” the Bench noted, pointing to the testimony about milk-selling and the standard minimum-wage norms. They accepted the appellant’s argument that even basic minimum wages would place the monthly income at ₹3,300.
The issue of filial consortium took centre stage for a few minutes. The respondents’ counsel insisted that Pranay Sethi does not allow compensation for siblings. But the Bench was quick to counter.
The judges remarked, “The law recognised by Magma clearly entitles siblings to filial consortium,” adding that there was no legal bar simply because some siblings were added later in the proceedings after the father’s death.
When one lawyer tried to argue that siblings shouldn’t get this benefit since they weren’t original claimants, the Bench almost brushed it aside. “There is no estoppel against law,” one of the judges observed firmly.
On interest too, the Court said the High Court was wrong to reduce it. The standard 8% should apply, the judges held.
Decision
By the end of the hearing, the Court enhanced the compensation by recognising ₹40,000 each for four siblings - totalling ₹2 lakh - and re-assessing monthly income to ₹3,300. The interest rate was restored to 8% per annum. After recalculating all components, the final compensation (excluding interest) stood at ₹7,79,533, as jointly worked out by all parties during the hearing.
The amount, the Court ordered, must be deposited before the MACT within two months, after adjusting earlier payments. The Tribunal will transfer the sum to the claimants’ bank accounts within two weeks of receipt. With that, the appeal was allowed, closing a long-pending chapter for the family.
Case Title: Ajmer Kaur & Others vs Mohinder Singh & Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11469 of 2022)
Case Type: Civil Appeal – Motor Accident Compensation (MACT) Enhancement
Decision Date: 15 May 2025
