Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, while recalculating compensation for the dependants of a man killed in a road accident involving an insured tanker lorry, enhanced the award to Rs. 20.80 lakh and directed the insurer to pay the balance within 12 weeks, with interest at 9% per annum from the date the claim was filed until realisation. In doing so, the Court applied future prospects and treated non-pecuniary loss from familial deprivation through consortium but noted its reservations about the Constitution Bench view in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) that “love and affection” cannot be granted as a separate head, even as it remained bound by that position.

The appeal arose from a motor accident claim filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the widow, two minor children, and parents of a deceased victim who died in a road accident on 09.06.2011. The victim, aged about 37 years, was riding a two-wheeler when a tanker lorry, insured with the respondent insurance company, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, hit him, resulting in his instantaneous death.

Also Read: PIL In Supreme Court Challenges New Income Tax Law Allowing Searches Of Digital Devices And “Virtual Digital Space”

The claimants sought compensation of Rs.20,00,000, asserting that the deceased was employed as a driver earning Rs.10,000 per month. The insurer contested negligence, income, and quantum. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held the driver of the offending vehicle negligent but assessed the monthly income at Rs.6,000 in the absence of documentary proof, awarding Rs.9,37,000 with 7.5% interest. The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,51,000 by recalculating income at Rs.7,000 but declined future prospects and retained a separate award under “loss of love and affection.”

Before the Supreme Court, the claimants challenged the assessment of income and denial of future prospects, while the insurer questioned the grant under the head of loss of love and affection.

The Court observed that “no amount of money can truly compensate for the loss” and recorded that compensation is “nothing but a rough estimate, being a token attempt to ease the financial burden on the dependents.” It stated that “the best that can be ensured is that the compensation is fair and reasonable, without being either arbitrary or niggardly.”

On the determination of income, the Court recorded that “the determination of income must be founded on proof placed on record and cannot rest on conjecture or assumptions divorced from evidence.” Referring to the salary certificate and supporting affidavit, it observed that “on the face of such cogent and relevant evidence, which was not impeached by the insurer, it would be wholly impermissible to assess the income at a lower figure.”

Regarding future prospects, the Court stated that “the concept of future prospects is an integral component of ‘just compensation’ and is not confined only to those in permanent government employment.” It further recorded that paragraph 59.4 of Pranay Sethi “unequivocally mandates that where the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary and below the age of 40 years, an addition of 40% of the established income towards future prospects is compulsory.” The Court noted that “this is not a matter of choice, but a binding norm flowing from Article 141 of the Constitution.”

On the head of loss of love and affection, the Court recorded that “it is difficult to ignore the conceptual tension that underlies this exclusion. The head of “future prospects” itself is a creation of judicial interpretation, evolved to respond to socioeconomic realities and the legitimate expectations of dependents. If the law is capable of recognising anticipated economic progression as a valid loss, it is not too clear why emotional deprivation manifested in loss of love and affection must be viewed as an impermissible head, especially when Chapter XII of the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation meant to help people in distress arising out of road accidents.”

Referring to Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, the Court observed that consortium now covers spousal, parental and filial relationships, with emotional deprivation taken into account within those recognised heads. On that basis, it treated the claim for love and affection as part of “Loss of Consortium”, raising the overall compensation to ₹20.80 lakh from ₹9.37 lakh.

The Court observed: “this Court is bound by the law declared by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), which does not countenance “loss of love and affection” as a distinct head of compensation. As subsequently clarified in Satinder Kaur (supra), referring to both Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance (supra), the non-pecuniary loss arising from deprivation of love and affection is comprehended within the broader head of “consortium”. Consequently, no separate award under the head of loss of love and affection is warranted.”

Also Read: S.138 NI Act | Defect In Authorisation At Time Of Filing Cheque Bounce Case Is Curable: Gauhati High Court

The Court directed that “the claimants are awarded compensation as follows” and recalculated the total compensation at Rs.20,80,000. “If any amount on account of compensation as awarded by the MACT, since enhanced by the High Court has been paid to the claimants, the insurer is directed to pay the balance amount of compensation within a period of twelve weeks from the date of this order. Interest @ 9% p.a. be paid on the total compensation awarded, from the date of filing the claim petition, till realization.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. Mr. Ram Ekbal Roy, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Ms. Neha Das, Adv. Mr. Aman Nihal, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR

Case Title: V. Pathmavathi & Ors. v. Bharthi AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 131

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. ____ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 23880 of 2022)

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma