The Supreme Court has substantially enhanced compensation payable to the family of a motor accident victim, reiterating that future prospects are a mandatory component of “just compensation” even for fixed-salary employees, and clarifying that loss of love and affection cannot be granted as a separate head after Pranay Sethi.
The bench Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed a civil appeal filed by the legal heirs of a deceased motorcyclist, enhancing compensation from ₹10.51 lakh to ₹20.80 lakh, along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.
The case arose out of a fatal road accident on 9 June 2011, in which D. Velu, aged 37, died after his two-wheeler was hit by a tanker lorry driven rashly and negligently. The vehicle was insured with Bharthi AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Velu is survived by his widow, two minor children, and parents, who filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of ₹20 lakh.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) assessed the deceased’s income at ₹6,000 per month due to lack of documentary proof and awarded ₹9.37 lakh as compensation.
On appeal, the Madras High Court enhanced the income to ₹7,000 per month and raised compensation to ₹10.51 lakh, but declined to grant future prospects.
Dissatisfied, the claimants approached the Supreme Court.
The Court found that a salary certificate and supporting affidavit of the employer clearly established that the deceased was earning ₹10,000 per month as a driver. The insurer failed to discredit this evidence.
“The determination of income must be founded on proof placed on record and cannot rest on conjecture,” the Court held.
Relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court held that a deceased aged below 40 years, on fixed salary or self-employment, is entitled to 40% addition towards future prospects as a matter of law, not discretion.
The High Court’s failure to apply this principle was held to be a manifest error of law.
While acknowledging the emotional deprivation suffered by the family, the Court reaffirmed that after Pranay Sethi and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, compensation can only be awarded under three conventional heads loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
The Court clarified that loss of love and affection is subsumed within consortium, which includes spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium (as recognised in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram)
Final Compensation Awarded by the Supreme Court
| Head of Compensation | Amount |
| Loss of Dependency (₹10,000 + 40% future prospects, multiplier 15) | ₹18,90,000 |
| Transport Expenses | ₹10,000 |
| Spousal Consortium | ₹50,000 |
| Parental Consortium (children) | ₹80,000 |
| Filial Consortium (mother) | ₹40,000 |
| Funeral Expenses | ₹10,000 |
| Total Compensation | ₹20,80,000 |
The father of the deceased having passed away during the pendency of proceedings, filial consortium was granted only to the mother.
Noting that the family had been litigating for over 15 years, the Court enhanced the interest rate from 7.5% to 9% per annum, payable from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.
Case Details
Case Title: V. Pathmavathi & Ors. Versus Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.
Case No.: SLP (C.) NO. 23880 OF 2022
Date: 06/02/2026
Read More: Customs Duty Evasion | Mumbai Court Grants Bail to Accused in DRI Duty-Free Gold Diversion Case
