Summary and Analysis of Thangavel & Ors. vs The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited
1. Heading of the Judgement:
Case Name: Thangavel & Ors. vs The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 3595 of 2024
Judges: Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Decision Date: August 08, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 949
2. Relevant Laws and Sections:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
Section 166: Governs fault-based claims for compensation in motor accident cases.
Section 163A & Schedule II: Provides for "no-fault liability" compensation with fixed income standards (not applicable here).Legal Precedent:
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680: Sets standards for non-pecuniary damages (e.g., loss of consortium, funeral expenses).
3. Basic Judgment Details:
Appellants: Parents of a 10-year-old boy killed in a bus accident.
Respondent: Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (owner of the bus).
Accident: The boy was cycling to school when hit by the respondent’s bus. Negligence by the bus driver was undisputed.
Tribunal Award (Original): ₹8,55,000 (details below).
High Court Decision (Madurai Bench): Reduced compensation to ₹5,80,000.
Supreme Court Decision:
Allowed the parents’ appeal.
Restored the Tribunal’s compensation of ₹8,55,000.
Reason: High Court erred in mechanically applying Schedule II standards.
4. Explanation of the Judgment:
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s reduction of compensation, emphasizing two key principles:
I. Fault vs. No-Fault Claims:
The High Court wrongly applied Schedule II (meant for "no-fault" claims under Section 163A) to this case.
Here, the claim was filed under Section 166 (fault-based), where negligence was proven. Schedule II standards do not apply.
II. Income Assessment for Minors:
High Court’s Error: Reduced the boy’s notional income from ₹5,000/month (fixed by Tribunal) to ₹30,000/year (₹2,500/month) based on Schedule II.
Supreme Court’s View:
There is "no straightjacket formula" for income of deceased children.
The Tribunal’s adoption of ₹5,000/month (aligned with precedents for a 9-year-old) was justified.
III. Correct Compensation Breakdown:
The Supreme Court recalculated compensation to demonstrate fairness:
Loss of Dependency:
Income: ₹5,000/month × 12 months = ₹60,000/year.
No deduction for personal expenses (as the child contributed fully to parents).
Multiplier: 15 (based on mother’s age: 36) → ₹60,000 × 15 = ₹7,50,000.Non-Pecuniary Damages (as per Pranay Sethi):
Filial Consortium: ₹40,000 × 2 parents = ₹80,000.
Funeral Expenses: ₹15,000 (correctly reduced by High Court).
Loss of Estate: ₹15,000 (rightly added by High Court).Additional Heads (Wrongly Deleted by High Court):
Transportation: ₹5,000.
Damage to clothes, ornaments & cycle: ₹5,000.
Total: ₹8,70,000 (higher than Tribunal’s award).
Key Rationale for Restoration:
Since claimants did not appeal for enhancement, the Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s original award (₹8,55,000) as a balanced outcome.
The High Court’s deletion of transportation and damage costs lacked rationale.
Final Outcome:
Tribunal’s award of ₹8,55,000 restored.
Respondent (Transport Corporation) must pay the amount within 1 month, minus any payments already made, with interest as directed by the Tribunal/High Court.
Core Ruling: Compensation for minors in fault-based claims must be assessed flexibly, not mechanically tied to Schedule II. Tribunals/Courts must consider precedents and actual circumstances.
Blog Posts
