-
by sayum
27 December 2025 6:11 AM
“Aspirations Were Shattered by the Accident” – Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment addressing a deeply human question within the framework of tort law: How do you compensate the future that was never lived? A young student in his final year of B.Com, preparing for Chartered Accountancy, was rendered completely paraplegic at the age of 20, after being run over by a rashly driven car. Two decades later, his legal heirs were still seeking rightful compensation for the loss of a life never fully lived. The Court stepped in not just with a recalibration of numbers, but with a humane and legally sound interpretation of how compensation should reflect both lost earning capacity and lost human potential.
The judgment enhances compensation to over ₹60.34 lakhs, which includes ₹20 lakhs for future medical expenses verified after the death of the victim, Sharad Singh, in 2021.
“Not Just a Statistic: The Court Recognises Human Aspiration and Academic Trajectory”
The tragedy of the case began in 2001 when the 20-year-old victim was riding pillion on a motorcycle. A car driven negligently by the first respondent struck the two-wheeler from behind, causing him to fall and subsequently be run over. The resulting fracture at vertebrae C4-5 left him with 100% permanent disability, as certified by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. His dreams of becoming a Chartered Accountant were extinguished in an instant.
In the present appeal, filed by his mother after his death, the key legal dispute concerned the quantum of compensation, especially the determination of future income and medical expenses incurred post High Court judgment.
“We Are Not Convinced That Minimum Wages Apply to a Chartered Accountant in the Making”
The Tribunal had earlier awarded compensation on the basis of minimum wages applicable to a workman in Delhi in 2001, calculating a monthly income of ₹3,339. The High Court marginally increased it to ₹3,352, still treating the victim as a skilled worker rather than a future professional. But the Supreme Court found this line of reasoning deeply flawed.
“The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that there was no rationale in adopting the minimum wages for determining the income of a bright student who was in the process of completing his graduation and proceeding to sit for the Chartered Accountants examinations.”
Rejecting the Insurance Company’s justification that the adopted wage was that of a skilled worker, the Court observed:
“We are not convinced that even that can be adopted for a graduate who was in the process of sitting for the Chartered Accountant examination which would have placed him in a good employment with immense prospects.”
Acknowledging the aspirations of the young man, the Court held: “Even if he had not obtained the certificate as a Chartered Accountant, upon graduation, he could have been employed as an Accountant.”
It then adopted ₹5,000 per month as notional income for the year 2001, and added 40% towards future prospects in line with the Constitution Bench ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Applying an 18 multiplier, the Court computed a total of ₹15,12,000 as compensation under this head.
“The Needs of the Paraplegic Were Not Limited by Geography” – SC Validates Medical Bills from Goa
A second issue that arose was the rejection of numerous medical bills by the Insurance Company on the ground that they were issued by hospitals in Goa and Bengaluru, while the victim was a permanent resident of Delhi. The Insurance Company had argued that these bills couldn’t be verified and lacked justification.
But the Court was unconvinced, stating in its earlier order dated August 1, 2025, that: “The respondent-company having its offices all over India cannot raise such a contention.”
The mother explained that the victim had to be shifted to Goa due to severe pneumonia and Delhi’s adverse climatic conditions, which threatened his fragile health. The Court accepted this explanation and directed that bills incurred after the High Court’s order till the victim’s death be verified and considered.
After due verification, the Insurance Company conceded that ₹21 lakhs worth of bills were genuine. The Court thus ordered ₹20 lakhs to be paid as compensation towards these future medical expenses, with the condition that no interest would be payable if paid within four months, failing which 9% interest per annum would apply from the date of judgment.
“Compensation Must Reflect the Life That Could Have Been”
The Court revisited and recalculated the entire compensation structure, which previously included ₹14 lakhs under conventional heads (loss of amenities, disfigurement, pain and suffering, etc.) and ₹11,22,356 in earlier medical expenses. Adding the newly assessed income loss, it arrived at a total of ₹40,34,356, to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the original petition.
To this was added the ₹20 lakhs towards future medical expenses, taking the total compensation to ₹60.34 lakhs.
“The Civil Appeal stands allowed with the above modification,” the Court concluded.
The Court's observations reflect not just a legal correction, but a moral acknowledgment of the life-long impact suffered by the victim and his family. It emphasized that potential and promise are as important as present qualification when courts are assessing fair compensation.
“The Aspirations Were Shattered by the Accident” – A Legal Recognition of Dreams Deferred
This ruling sets a persuasive precedent for future motor accident claims involving young students and professionals-in-the-making. It discourages mechanical application of minimum wages, especially where claimants had demonstrable academic or professional potential. More importantly, it reaffirms that dignity, aspiration, and human potential must inform the quantum of compensation, even in a strictly legal framework.
Date of Decision: September 26, 2025
