Holding

The Court held that the victim's income is Rs 10,000 per month with a compulsory 40% addition for future prospects, and that loss of love and affection is not a distinct head of compensation but is included within consortium.

Summary

The appellant claimants, the widow, minor children and parents of a 37‑year‑old driver who died instantly when his two‑wheeler was hit by a tanker, filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking just compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal initially assessed the victim's monthly income at Rs 6,000 and awarded Rs 9,37,000, which the High Court later enhanced to Rs 10,51,000 by assuming a salary of Rs 7,000 but omitted any amount for future prospects. The Supreme Court held that the salary certificate and employer affidavit proved a fixed monthly salary of Rs 10,000, which must be taken as the established income, and that a 40% addition for future prospects is mandatory for a deceased under 40 years on a fixed salary. The Court also affirmed that "loss of love and affection" is not a separate head of compensation but is subsumed within the head of consortium, following the binding precedent of Pranay Sethi. Consequently, the Court increased the loss of dependency award to Rs 18,90,000, added appropriate consortium amounts, and ordered the insurer to pay a total of Rs 20,80,000 with interest at 9% per annum. The appeal was disposed of in favour of the claimants.

Issues considered

Whether the victim's monthly income should be fixed at Rs 10,000 and whether a 40% addition for future prospects is mandatory under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Whether compensation can be awarded under a separate head of "loss of love and affection" or whether it is subsumed within the head of consortium.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 166, s. 168, s. 173

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue as regards the assessment of the income of the victim and the denial of any amount towards future prospects; and the grant of compensation under the head “loss of love and affection”. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Just Compensation of victim and grant of future prospects – Fatal road accident – Victim aged about 37 years died instantly when his two-wheeler was hit by a tanker lorry insured with the respondent-insurance company, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner – Claimants (the widow of the

Subjects

Just CompensationFair and reasonable CompensationFatal road accidentAssessment of income of victimDenial of amount towards future prospectsDenial of grant of compensation under the head "loss of love and affection"Loss of love and affection not a distinct head of compensationSatinder KaurPranay SethiMagma General InsuranceNon-pecuniary loss arising from deprivation of love and affection comprehended within the broader head of "consortium"No separate award under the head of loss of love and affection warrantedDetermination of incomeDriverFixed monthly salary not impeached by insurerMonthly income of the victimGrant of future prospectsEmotional deprivationLegitimate expectationsAmbit of consortium

Judgment

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 436 : 2026 INSC 131

V. Pathmavathi & Ors.
v.
Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 833 of 2026)
06 February 2026
[Dipankar Datta* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue as regards the assessment of the income of the victim and
the denial of any amount towards future prospects; and the grant
of compensation under the head “loss of love and affection”.

Headnotes†
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Just Compensation – Assessment
of income of victim and grant of future prospects – Fatal road
accident – Victim aged about 37 years died instantly when
his two-wheeler was hit by a tanker lorry insured with the
respondent-insurance company, which was driven in a rash
and negligent manner – Claimants (the widow of the victim,
their two minor children and the victim’s parents) filed claim
petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- stating that
the victim, a driver was earning a regular monthly income of
Rs.10,000/- – MACT held that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the offending vehicle; however, took the victim’s
monthly income at Rs.6,000/- and awarded compensation of
Rs.9,37,000/- with interest @7.5% – Claimants filed appeal
before High Court which affirmed the finding on negligence;
enhanced the compensation payable by the insurer to
Rs.10,51,000/- with interest @7.5% by taking the monthly salary
of the victim as Rs.7,000/- – Interference with:
Held: Determination of income must be founded on proof placed
on record and cannot rest on conjecture or assumptions divorced
from evidence – In view of the cogent and relevant evidence (the
salary certificate issued by the employer of the victim (Exbt.P 14)
which records that the victim was employed as a driver on a fixed
monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-) which was not impeached by the

* Author
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 437

V. Pathmavathi & Ors. v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.

insurer, the monthly income of the victim has to be reckoned
as Rs.10,000/- – Further, the High Court omitted to consider
grant of any amount towards future prospects – Victim was 37
years of age at the time of the accident and was earning a fixed
monthly income – Once these foundational facts are established,
the addition towards future prospects follows as a necessary
consequence – High Court, in declining such addition, failed to
apply the binding precedent of this Court, thereby committing
a manifest error of law – Accordingly, the income of the victim
being fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month, an addition of 40% towards
future prospects is warranted which brings the monthly income
to Rs.14,000/- – After deducting one-fourth towards personal and
living expenses, the monthly contribution to the family would be
Rs.10,500/- – Applying the multiplier of 15, as applicable to the
age group of the victim, the total loss of dependency is computed
at Rs.18,90,000/- (Rs.10,500 × 12 × 15) – Further, this Court is
bound by the law declared by the Constitution Bench in Pranay
Sethi, which does not countenance “loss of love and affection”
as a distinct head of compensation – As subsequently clarified
in Satinder Kaur, referring to both Pranay Sethi and Magma
General Insurance, the non-pecuniary loss arising from deprivation
of love and affection is comprehended within the broader head
of “consortium” – Thus, no separate award under the head of
loss of love and affection is warranted – Total compensation of
Rs.20,80,000/- awarded with interest @9% p.a. to be paid from
the date of filing the claim petition, till realization. [Paras 16, 17,
19, 29, 32]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Just Compensation – Assessment
of income of victim and grant of future prospects not matters
of judicial discretion:
Held: Assessment of income and the grant of future prospects are
not matters of judicial discretion in the abstract but are now firmly
structured by authoritative precedents – Constitution Bench in
Pranay Sethi clarified therein that the concept of future prospects
is an integral component of “just compensation” and is not confined
only to those in permanent government employment – Where the
deceased is 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 – This is not a matter of choice,
438 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

but a binding norm flowing from Article 141 of the Constitution – In
the present case, the victim was 37 years of age at the time of the
accident and was earning a fixed monthly income – Once these
foundational facts are established, the addition towards future
prospects follows as a necessary consequence – High Court, in
declining such addition, failed to apply the binding precedent of this
Court, thereby committing a manifest error of law. [Paras 17, 18]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Grant of compensation under
the head “loss of love and affection” – Judicial discipline
vis-à-vis substantive justice – In Rajesh v. Rajbir, this Court
recognised “loss of love and affection” as a distinct head
of compensation, reflecting the non-pecuniary deprivation
suffered by family members upon the untimely death of a
loved one – However, the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi
expressly disapproved this approach holding that Rajesh
was rendered per incuriam and that compensation should
be confined to three conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate,
loss of consortium and funeral expenses in order to preserve
consistency and certainty in awards:
Held: Judicial discipline demands that a Constitution Bench decision
must prevail over a judgment of a Bench of lesser strength –
However, 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 socio-economic
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 – Consistency, though desirable, cannot be elevated
to a point where it eclipses the core objective of awarding “just
compensation” – The law must remain responsive to lived human
realities, especially in cases involving the sudden rupture of familial
bonds – In Magma General Insurance, the ambit of “consortium”
was expanded to include parental and filial consortium, implicitly
acknowledging the emotional and relational loss suffered by children
and parents alike – This doctrinal expansion suggests that the
distinction between “consortium” and “loss of love and affection”
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 439

V. Pathmavathi & Ors. v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.

may be one of form rather than substance – Furthermore, in United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, a three-Judge Bench
of this Court harmonised the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi
and Magma General Insurance to ensure uniformity in the award
of compensation under conventional heads – Consistent with the
position taken therein but notwithstanding the reservations noted,
this Court is bound by the law declared by the Constitution Bench
in Pranay Sethi, which does not countenance “loss of love and
affection” as a distinct head of compensation – As subsequently
clarified in Satinder Kaur, referring to both Pranay Sethi and Magma
General Insurance, the non-pecuniary loss arising from deprivation
of love and affection is comprehended within the broader head of
“consortium”. [Para 24-26, 28, 29]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 r/w s.168 – Award of
compensation under – Purpose – “Just compensation”,
determination to be fair and reasonable – Discussed.
[Paras 12-14]

Case Law Cited
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017] 13 SCR 100 :
(2017) 16 SCC 680 – followed.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur [2020] 5 SCR
669 : (2021) 11 SC 780 – relied on.
Rajesh v. Rajbir [2013] 5 SCR 961 : (2013) 9 SCC 54; Reshma
Kumari v. Madan Mohan [2013] 2 SCR 706 : (2013) 9 SCC 65;
Sarla Verma v. DTC [2009] 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 6 SCC 121;
Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd [2012] 3 SCR 1178 :
(2012) 2 SCC 421; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu
Ram [2018] 11 SCR 664 : (2018) 18 SCC 130 – referred to.

List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

List of Keywords
Just Compensation; Fair and reasonable Compensation; Fatal road
accident; Assessment of the income of victim; Denial of amount
towards future prospects; Denial of grant of compensation under the
head “loss of love and affection”; “Loss of love and affection” not a
440 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

distinct head of compensation; Satinder Kaur; Pranay Sethi; Magma
General Insurance; Non-pecuniary loss arising from deprivation
of love and affection comprehended within the broader head of
“consortium”; No separate award under the head of loss of love
and affection warranted; Determination of income; Driver; Fixed
monthly salary not impeached by insurer; Monthly income of the
victim; Assessment of income; Grant of future prospects; Emotional
deprivation; Legitimate expectations; Ambit of “consortium” .

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 833 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in CMA No. 2806 of 2013

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Appellant(s):
T. Harish Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Sandeep Jha, Ram Ekbal Roy, Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Neha Das,
Aman Nihal, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Binay Kumar Das.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Dipankar Datta, J.

1. Leave granted.

The Appeal
2. The present appeal assails the judgment and order dated 31.01.20201
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras2 in C.M.A. No.
2806 of 2013, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed
by the claimants (heirs of the deceased) and modified the award
dated 08.11.20123, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

1 impugned order
2 High Court
3 award
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 441

V. Pathmavathi & Ors. v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.

Chennai4 while deciding a claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 19885. It is at the instance of the claimants/
appellants before the High Court6.

Factual Background
3. Facts, in brief, are that on 09.06.2011, D. Velu7, aged about 37 years8
as noted by the High Court, was riding a two-wheeler. A tanker lorry9
insured with the respondent–insurance company10, which was driven
in a rash and negligent manner, hit the two-wheeler and as a result
thereof the victim died instantly.
4. The claimants, viz. the widow of the victim, their two minor children
and the victim’s parents lodged a claim petition11 before the MACT,
claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of loss of
dependency and other conventional heads. It was claimed that the
victim, employed as a driver at the material time, was earning a regular
monthly income of Rs.10,000/- and since the accident occurred solely
due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, they
were entitled to “just compensation”. Before the MACT, the insurer
contested the claim, inter alia, disputing negligence, the income of
the victim, and the quantum of compensation claimed.
5. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record,
the MACT, by its award, held that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the offending vehicle; however, in view of lack of
supporting documentary evidence, the victim’s monthly salary was
reckoned as Rs. 6,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation payable
was assessed as follows: the victim’s monthly income was taken at
Rs. 6,000/-; and, after deducting one-fourth towards personal
expenses, i.e., Rs. 1,500/-, the notional monthly contribution

4 MACT
5 Act
6 claimants
7 victim
8 MACT recorded the age of the victim as 36 years. As the marginal variation in age does not materially
affect the computation of compensation payable to the claimants, we deem it appropriate to consider the
age of the victim as 37 years, as recorded by the High Court, for the limited purpose of determining the
quantum of compensation.
9 offending vehicle
10 insurer
11 M.C.O.P. No. 4026 of 2011
442 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to the family was calculated at Rs. 4,500/-; then, applying the
multiplier of 16, the loss of income was computed at Rs. 8,64,000/-
(Rs. 4,500 × 12 × 16). In addition, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded
towards transport charges; Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium
to the widow of the victim; Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses;
Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the parents and
children at Rs. 10,000/- each; and Rs. 1,000/- towards damages.
No amount was awarded under the head of loss of estate. Thus, the
total compensation payable was determined at Rs. 9,37,000/- with
interest @7.5%.
6. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants
preferred an appeal before the High Court under Section 173 of the
Act.
7. The High Court, by the impugned order, affirmed the finding on
negligence; however, it modified the award by enhancing the quantum
of compensation payable by the insurer from Rs. 9,37,000/- to
Rs. 10,51,000/-. In computing the quantum of compensation payable,
the High Court reckoned the monthly salary of the victim as Rs. 7,000/-.
The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the
date of payment and with proportionate cost. The following is the
break-up of compensation granted by the High Court:

Serial Description Compensation
Number Fixed by the High
Age: 37 Years
Court
1. Income Rs. 7,000/-
Deduction for Personal Expenses (1/4 )
th
Rs. 1,750-
Notional Income Rs. 5,250/-
Multiplier 15
Loss of Income Rs. 9,45,000/-
(5250 x 12 x 15)

2. Transport Charge Rs. 10,000/-
3. Loss of Estate Nil
4. Loss of Consortium Rs. 25,000/-
(widow of the victim)
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 443

V. Pathmavathi & Ors. v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.

5. Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/-
6. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 60,000/-
(parents - Rs. 10,000/- each)
(children - Rs. 20,000/- each)
7. Damages to clothing Rs. 1,000/-
Total Rs. 10,51,000/-

8. Dissatisfied with the minor modification of compensation and, in
particular, the denial of future prospects despite the settled law laid
down by this Court, the claimants are now before us seeking further
enhancement.

Issues Involved
9. While the claimants contend that the High Court erred on two counts
[(i) not reckoning the victim’s monthly salary as Rs.10,000/- and (ii)
not awarding future prospects in line with the decision in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi12], the insurer claims that the
High Court was right in not accepting the claim of Rs.10,000/- being
the monthly salary of the victim in the absence of supporting evidence.
However, while omission of the High Court not to grant any amount
for future prospects has not been seriously contested, the insurer
has claimed, relying on Pranay Sethi (supra), that the High Court
erred in granting Rs.60,000/- on account of loss and affection for the
parents and the children of the victim. Pointed reference has been
made to Pranay Sethi (supra) overruling the decision in Rajesh v.
Rajbir13, which had provided compensation under such head.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials on record.
11. The controversy in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass and
relates primarily to:
(i) the assessment of the income of the victim and the denial of
any amount towards future prospects; and
(ii) the grant of compensation under the head “loss of love and
affection”.

12 (2017) 16 SCC 680
13 (2013) 9 SCC 54
444 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Analysis
12. We ought to remind ourselves, at the outset, that when an individual
dies as a result of a fatal road accident and his distressed dependents
apply for compensation either from the owner of the vehicle
responsible for the death or the insurance company with whom
such vehicle is insured, no amount of money can truly compensate
for the loss. Compensation is nothing but a rough estimate, being
a token attempt to ease the financial burden on the dependents.
Take consortium, for example. It is impossible to put a price on
the loss of a loved one’s companionship. Spousal, filial or parental
compensation are all about acknowledging the emotional void but
the payout can never be more than a rough approximation. It is like
trying to measure the immeasurable. Considering the income of the
deceased, the needs of his dependents and the emotional toll of
the loss, the best that can be ensured is that the compensation is
fair and reasonable, without being either arbitrary or niggardly. This
would be in accord with the foundational principle governing the
determination of “just compensation” under Section 168 of the Act.
13. In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan14, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court held that the purpose of award of compensation under
section 166 read with section 168 of the Act is to place the distressed
dependents of the victim of a fatal road accident, if the victim had
been the sole bread earner, in almost the same position financially
if he lived his natural span of life. It is obviously not intended to put
such distressed dependents in a better financial position in which
they would otherwise have been if the accident had not occurred. At
the same time, the determination of compensation is not an exact
science and the exercise involves an assessment based on estimation
and conjectures, here and there, as many imponderable factors and
unpredictable contingences have to be taken into consideration.
Obviously, award of damages in each case would depend on the
particular facts and circumstances of the case but the element of
fairness in the amount of compensation so determined is the ultimate
guiding factor.
14. What follows is that the amount of compensation should be “just”,
i.e., it implies that the determination is fair, reasonable and equitable

14 (2013) 9 SCC 65
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 445

V. Pathmavathi & Ors. v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.

by accepted legal standards and is not a bonanza. Though “just”
compensation can never be prefect or absolute compensation, since
loss of human life can never be compensated by monetary terms,
the principle of awarding “just” compensation and assessing the
extent of dependency would depend on examination of the unique
situation of each individual case.

Issue 1:
15. Bearing the aforesaid well-settled principles in mind, we now move
on to decide the first issue.
16. In the present case, the MACT proceeded on the premise that the
monthly income of the victim was Rs. 6,000/-. This was subsequently
enhanced by the High Court to Rs. 7,000/-, albeit without recording
any reason. However, learned counsel appearing for the claimants
has rightly drawn our attention to the salary certificate issued by the
employer of the victim, marked Exhibit P-14, which unequivocally
records that the victim was employed as a driver on a fixed monthly
salary of Rs. 10,000/-. This documentary evidence is further
corroborated by the affidavit sworn by the victim’s employer (PW-
3). 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. The determination of income
must be founded on proof placed on record and cannot rest on
conjecture or assumptions divorced from evidence. Accordingly, for
the purposes of re-computation, the monthly income of the victim
has to be reckoned as Rs. 10,000/-.
17. Equally significant is the High Court’s omission to consider grant of
any amount towards future prospects. Assessment of income and the
grant of future prospects are not matters of judicial discretion in the
abstract but are now firmly structured by authoritative precedents.
Having regard to the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the law on
this aspect is no longer res integra. The Constitution Bench clarified
therein that the concept of future prospects is an integral component
of “just compensation” and is not confined only to those in permanent
government employment. While this Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC15
adopted a structured approach, Santosh Devi v. National Insurance

15 (2009) 6 SCC 121
446 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Co. Ltd16 marked a jurisprudential shift by recognising the economic
realities faced by self-employed persons and those on fixed salaries.
Although Santosh Devi (supra) was later held not to be a binding
precedent on account of judicial discipline, the Constitution Bench in
Pranay Sethi (supra) itself incorporated, refined and standardised
the principle of future prospects for such categories by holding as
follows:
59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi [Santosh
Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421]
should have been well advised to refer the matter to a
larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what
has been stated in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC,
(2009) 6 SCC 121], a judgment by a coordinate Bench.
It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength
cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by
another coordinate Bench.
59.2. As Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC
54] has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari
[Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65],
which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision
in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54] is
not a binding precedent.
59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50%
of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards
future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent
job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made.
The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased
was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be
15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below the
age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased
was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the

16 (2012) 2 SCC 421
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 447

V. Pathmavathi & Ors. v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.

deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should
be regarded as the necessary method of computation.
The established income means the income minus the
tax component.
59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction
for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the
courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma
[Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121] which we have
reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6
SCC 121] read with para 42 of that judgment.
59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively.
The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of
10% in every three years.
18. Paragraph 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra) 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. This is not a matter of
choice, but a binding norm flowing from Article 141 of the Constitution.
19. In the present case, the victim was 37 years of age at the time of
the accident and was earning a fixed monthly income. Once these
foundational facts are established, the addition towards future
prospects follows as a necessary consequence. The High Court, in
declining such addition, failed to apply the binding precedent of this
Court, thereby committing a manifest error of law.
20. Accordingly, the income of the victim being fixed at Rs. 10,000/- per
month, an addition of 40% towards future prospects is warranted which
brings the monthly income to Rs. 14,000/-. After deducting one-fourth
towards personal and living expenses, the monthly contribution to
the family would be Rs. 10,500/-. Applying the multiplier of 15, as
applicable to the age group of the victim, the total loss of dependency
is computed at Rs. 18,90,000/- (Rs. 10,500 × 12 × 15).
448 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Issue 2: Grant of compensation under the head “loss of love and
affection”

21. The second issue raises a question that lies at the intersection of
judicial discipline and substantive justice.
22. In Rajesh (supra), this Court recognised “loss of love and affection”
as a distinct head of compensation, reflecting the non-pecuniary
deprivation suffered by family members upon the untimely death
of a loved one. However, the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi
(supra) expressly disapproved this approach holding that Rajesh
(supra) was rendered per incuriam and that compensation should
be confined to three conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses in order to preserve consistency
and certainty in awards. Observing disagreement, Pranay Sethi
(supra) held thus:
52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we
find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh
[Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54]. It has granted
Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards
loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care
and guidance for minor children. The head relating to
loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though
Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54] refers to
Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2012) 6 SCC 421], it does not seem to follow the same.
The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say,
cannot be determined on percentage basis because that
would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination
of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any
quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There
can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in
bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to
be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same.
There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise,
there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same
and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense
variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence
of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts
are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 449

V. Pathmavathi & Ors. v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.

to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable
figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss
of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000,
Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of
revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But
the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric.
We think that it would be condign that the amount that
we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage
basis in every three years and the enhancement should
be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are
disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency
in respect of those heads.
23. There can be no quarrel with the binding nature of Pranay Sethi
(supra). Judicial discipline demands that a Constitution Bench
decision must prevail over a judgment of a Bench of lesser strength.
Accordingly, this Court is constrained to follow the law declared
therein.
24. That said, 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 socio-economic 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.
25. The concern expressed in Pranay Sethi (supra) was primarily one
of consistency and avoidance of unguided discretion. However,
consistency, though desirable, cannot be elevated to a point where
it eclipses the core objective of awarding “just compensation”. The
law must remain responsive to lived human realities, especially in
cases involving the sudden rupture of familial bonds.
26. It is in this context that the subsequent decision of this Court in Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram17 assumes significance.
This Court expanded the ambit of “consortium” to include parental

17 (2018) 18 SCC 130
450 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and filial consortium, implicitly acknowledging the emotional and
relational loss suffered by children and parents alike. This doctrinal
expansion suggests that the distinction between “consortium” and
“loss of love and affection” may be one of form rather than substance.
The coordinate Bench ruled as follows:
21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
[National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017)
16 SCC 680] dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One
of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance,
“consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses
“spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial
consortium”. The right to consortium would include the
company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and
affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family.
With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations
with the deceased spouse: [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013)
9 SCC 54].
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which
allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of
“company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the
other in every conjugal relation”. [Black’s Law Dictionary
(5th Edn., 1979).]
21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon
the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training”.
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a
child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes
great shock and agony to the parents and family of the
deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their
child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love,
affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms
about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 451

V. Pathmavathi & Ors. v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.

jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of
a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of
the compensation awarded in the case of the death of
a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be
awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the
death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is
a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and
companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed
at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases
of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their
minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are
entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of
filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children
who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under
the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation
on this count [Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v.
Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848; Uttarakhand High
Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine
Utt 2435; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela
Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74]. However,
there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which
compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as
consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding
compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in
Pranay Sethi. In the present case, we deem it appropriate
to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an
amount of Rs.40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.
27. Interestingly, we find from paragraph 25 of Magma General Insurance
(supra) that apart from Rs. 80,000/- awarded on account of filial
consortium, this Court awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss
and affection in addition.
28. More recently, in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Satinder Kaur18, a three-Judge Bench of this Court harmonised

18 (2021) 11 SC 780
452 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma
General Insurance (supra) to ensure uniformity in the award of
compensation under conventional heads. Reaffirming the binding
nature of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court held that compensation
in death cases is confined to three conventional heads, i.e., loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. At the same time,
drawing upon Magma General Insurance (supra), this Court clarified
that consortium is a compendious concept encompassing spousal,
parental and filial consortium. It was further held that loss of love
and affection is subsumed within loss of consortium and cannot be
awarded as a separate head. This Court held as follows:
34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide
uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and
loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and the High
Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of
consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution
Bench in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680], has recognised only
three conventional heads under which compensation can
be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses. In Magma General [Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130], this
Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium
to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as
well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is
comprehended in loss of consortium.
35. The Tribunals and the High Courts are directed to
award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a
legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to
award compensation towards loss of love and affection
as a separate head.
29. Consistent with the aforesaid position but notwithstanding the
reservations noted earlier, 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
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 453

V. Pathmavathi & Ors. v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.

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.
30. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the claimants are awarded
compensation as follows:

Serial Description Compensation
Number Fixed by this Court
Age: 37 Years

1. Income Rs. 10,000/-
Addition for future prospects Rs. 14,000/-
(40% of the fixed monthly salary)
Deduction for Personal Expenses Rs. 3,500/-
(1/4th)
Notional Income Rs. 10,500/-

Multiplie 15

Loss of Income Rs. 18,90,000/-
(10,500 x 12 x 15)
2. Transport Charge Rs. 10,000/-
3. Loss of Estate Nil
4. Loss of Consortium
i. Spousal Consortium Rs. 50,000/-
ii. Parental Consortium Rs. 80,000/-
(Rs. 40,000/- each)
iii. Filial Consortium Rs. 40,000/-19
5. Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 20,80,000/-

31. If any amount on account of compensation as awarded by the MACT,
since enhanced by the High Court has been paid to the claimants,

19 since the father of the victim passed away on 12.11.2019, filial consortium is granted only to the mother
of the victim.
454 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the insurer is directed to pay the balance amount of compensation
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of this order.
32. The victim passed away on 09.07.2011. His dependants have been
pursuing legal proceedings for grant of compensation since the past
15 years. As a consequence, we deem it appropriate to direct that
interest @ 9% p.a. be paid on the total compensation awarded, from
the date of filing the claim petition, till realization.
33. The civil appeal, thus, stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
34. Connected applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey