In a significant ruling on motor accident compensation, the Supreme Court has upheld an award of over ₹82 lakh to the parents of a Chartered Accountancy (CA) student who died in a road accident, while granting an additional ₹80,000 towards filial consortium. The Court held that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be guided by the principle of “just compensation” and not reduced merely due to technical flaws in the methodology adopted by the Tribunal.

A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N. V. Anjaria was dealing with cross-appeals arising from the death of 20-year-old Akash Kumar, a CA Final student, who lost his life when the Wagon-R car in which he was travelling collided with a stationary truck in Delhi in June 2013.

The insurance company argued that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the car driver and also challenged the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and the Delhi High Court that the truck driver was negligent for leaving the vehicle parked on the road at night without parking lights, indicators, reflectors, or warning signs.

The Court observed that merely because a vehicle collides with a truck from behind does not automatically establish negligence on the part of the following vehicle. It emphasized that a stationary truck occupying the roadway in the dead of night without adequate warning measures posed a serious hazard to road users.

On the issue of compensation, the Court noted that although the deceased was earning only a modest stipend during his articleship, he was pursuing CA Final and had promising professional prospects. The Tribunal had assessed his income at ₹55,500 per month by considering his educational achievements and future earning potential rather than restricting itself to the stipend actually received.

While the Supreme Court acknowledged that there was some overlap in the Tribunal's methodology because future earning prospects had already been factored into the assessed income, it refused to reduce the compensation. The Court observed that after more than a decade since the accident and considering the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act, reducing the award on technical grounds would not serve the ends of justice.

At the same time, the Court declined the claimants’ request for further enhancement based on speculative assumptions that the deceased would certainly qualify as a Chartered Accountant and earn substantially higher income in the future. The Bench held that compensation cannot be founded upon conjecture regarding assured professional success.

However, the Court found that neither the Tribunal nor the High Court had awarded compensation under the head of filial consortium. Relying on the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, it granted ₹40,000 each to the deceased's parents towards filial consortium.

Consequently, the total compensation payable to the claimants was enhanced from ₹81,21,900 to ₹82,01,900 along with interest, and the insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within four weeks.

Case Details:

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kalu Ram & Others,

Civil Appeal No. 8706 of 2026 (Decided on June 23, 2026)

2026 INSC 653

Representation:-

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR, Mr. Rohit Kumar Sinha, Adv., Mr. Surya Kamal Mishra, Adv., Mr. Partap Singh, Adv.,  Mr. Arun Yadav, Adv., Ms. Chetna Yadav, Adv., Mr. Mayank Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. B.N Yadav, Adv., Mr. Ashutosh Yadav, AOR, Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Partap Singh, Adv., Mr. Arun Yadav, Adv., Ms. Chetna Yadav, Adv., Mr. Mayank Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. B.N Bajpai, Adv., Mr. Ashutosh Yadav, AOR, Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, AOR, Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR, Mr. Rohit Kumar Sinha, Adv., Mr. Surya Kamal Mishra, Adv.