Thangavel v. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited
Background
A 10-year-old boy cycling to school was fatally hit by a bus belonging to the respondent State Transport Corporation; the driver's negligence was not disputed. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded the parents Rs. 8,55,000 in compensation, calculating the child's notional income at Rs. 5,000 per month with an 18-multiplier. The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) reduced this to Rs. 5,80,000, applying the lower statutory income figure of Rs. 30,000/year under Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act (meant for no-fault claims) and a 15-multiplier, while also deleting some smaller heads of compensation like transportation and loss-of-property expenses. The parents appealed to the Supreme Court solely on the question of quantum.
Decision Breakdown
The Court held that Schedule II's income figures apply only to no-fault claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, not to claims under Section 166 (as here, where negligence was proven), so the Tribunal's Rs. 5,000/month figure, consistent with a prior Division Bench ruling for a similarly aged child, was correct and the High Court erred in departing from it without reasoning. Recalculating under the Constitution Bench ruling in Pranay Sethi for loss of consortium and restoring the deleted heads (transportation, loss of dress/ornaments/cycle), the Court arrived at a higher figure of Rs. 8,70,000, but since the claimants themselves had not filed an appeal challenging the quantum, it simply restored the original Tribunal award of Rs. 8,55,000 and set aside the High Court's reduction.
Lesson Learnt
In motor accident death claims involving children, compensation should reflect realistic notional income based on precedent and actual facts, not the lower statutory Schedule II figures meant only for no-fault liability claims, and appellate courts should not reduce awards without clearly explaining why they are departing from settled reasoning.