REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
  CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  4688­4689 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8119­8120 of 2019)
S. CHANDRASEKHARAN & ORS.  …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS 
M. DINAKAR & ANR.           ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
Leave granted.
2. The   appellants   before   us   are   the  claimants  in   an   action   for
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1988 Act). An
accident   had   occurred   on   28 th
  February   2011   at   about   10:45
A.M., which resulted in death of one Bala Babitha, a 37 year old
lady,   and   caused   injuries   to   her   husband   and   her   minor
daughter. The first appellant is the husband of the deceased. The
second   and   the   third   appellants   are   their   children,   who   were
minors   by   age   at   the   point   of   time   the   accident   occurred.   The
fourth appellant is the mother of the deceased. The first appellant
1

and the third appellant alongwith the deceased were travelling in
an   auto   rickshaw   from   Velachery   to   Adambakkam   in   the   city   of
Chennai, which was hit by a vehicle (bearing registration no. TN­
04­W­6189). The respondent no. 1 was the owner of that vehicle.
The   second   respondent   is   the   insurance   company,   whose   policy
covered the offending vehicle. 
3. Claim was lodged by the appellants under Section 166 of the
1988   Act   before   the   Motor   Accident   Claims   Tribunal,   Chennai
(the Tribunal). Before the Tribunal,  rash  and  negligent driving  of
the offending vehicle was proved, and that finding was not upset
in   appeal   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Madras   in   its
judgment   delivered   on   27 th
  February   2018.   The   present   appeals
arise from that judgment. The Tribunal awarded compensation in
favour   of   the   appellant   no.1   for   a   sum   of   Rs.4,77,100/­.   The
minor   daughter   (appellant   no.3)   of   the   deceased   and   the   first
appellant   was   awarded   compensation   of   Rs.2,06,000/­.   The
quantum   of   compensation   on   account   of   death   of   said   Bala
Babitha   was   computed   by   the   Tribunal   to   be   of   Rs.36,92,350/­.
Monthly   income   of   the   deceased   was   calculated   as   one­third   of
2

her husband’s income. The Tribunal found the husband’s income
to   be   Rs.78,700/­   per   month.   This   finding   of   monthly   income   of
the   husband   was   not   disturbed   by   the   High   Court.   The
compensation   amount   was   to   carry   an   interest   of   7.5%   per
annum from the date of filing of the claim, till the date of deposit.
Deposit  of the awarded sum  was directed to be made within  two
months from the date of the award. 
4. Both   the   insurance   company   and   the   appellants   preferred
separate appeals in respect of sums awarded as compensation in
relation to the deceased and the injured victims.  The High Court
reduced the sum awarded as compensation in respect of the first
appellant to Rs.3,41,000/­.  As regards the third appellant, award
of   Rs.2,06,000/­   as   compensation   was   retained.   Compensation
awarded   to   the   family   of   the   deceased   victim   was   modified   and
reduced   to   Rs.32,82,090/­   by   the   High   Court.   The   Tribunal   had
quantified compensation for the surviving  members of the family
of deceased on her notional income calculated on the basis of her
husband’s income, following a judgment of this Court delivered in
the   case   of   Arun   Kumar   Agrawal   And   Another   vs.   National
3

Insurance   Company   Ltd.   And   Others .   [(2010)   9   SCC   218].  The
High   Court,   however,   considered   her   salary   in   a   job   she   was
engaged   in   three   years   back   to   be   the   basis   for   quantifying   the
pecuniary   loss   to   be   awarded   to   the   surviving   members   of   her
family.   Both   the   Tribunal   and   the   High   Court   had   applied   the
multiplier   principle   to   arrive   at   the   figure   of   pecuniary   loss.
Before   us,   arguments   have   been   advanced   on   the   point   of
reduction   of   compensation   to   the   family   of   the   deceased   victim
and we shall confine our judgment to that issue only.  
5. The   heads   under   which   award   was   made   by   the   Tribunal
quantifying   the   compensation   to   be   paid   on   account   of   the
deceased victim were:­
Pecuniary Loss : Rs.31,50,000
Loss of consortium : Rs. 1,00,000
Funeral expenses : Rs. 25,000
Loss of love and 
affection : Rs.4,00,000
Medical expenses : Rs.17,350
Total Rs.36,92,350/­
6. While   modifying   the   award,   the   High   Court   computed   the
compensation under the following heads:­
4

Pecuniary loss Rs.30,94,740.00
Loss of consortium Rs.40,000.00
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000.00
Loss of Love and affection to
the claimants­Rs.25,000 Rs.1,00,000.00
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000.00
Medical Expenses Rs.17,350.00
Total Rs.32,82,090.00
        
7 . We   are   to   address   now   as   to   whether   the   pecuniary   loss
which   had   occurred   on   account   of   death   of   the   victim   has   to   be
computed on pegging it on her personal income she earned from
her   employment   approximately   three   years   back   or   it   should   be
relatable to  the income of her  surviving  husband.   This question
arises   as   there   was   evidence   before   the   Tribunal   that   the
deceased was a graduate with B. Com. degree and was employed
till   the   year   2008   in   a   company   earning   monthly   salary   of
Rs.34,385/­.   At   the   time   of   the   accident,   however,   the   deceased
was   not   employed.     The   Tribunal   determined   the   compensation
relying on the case of   Arun Kumar Agrawal   (supra).   I t has been
held in this judgment:­
“35.   In   our   view,   it   is   highly   unfair,   unjust   and
inappropriate   to   compute   the   compensation   payable
to   the   dependants   of   a   deceased   wife/mother,   who
does   not   have   a   regular   income,   by   comparing   her
services with that of a housekeeper or a servant or an
employee,   who   works   for   a   fixed   period.   The
5

gratuitous   services   rendered   by   the   wife/mother   to
the husband and children cannot be equated with the
services of an employee and no evidence or data can
possibly be produced for estimating the value of such
services. It is virtually impossible to measure in terms
of   money   the   loss   of   personal   care   and   attention
suffered  by the  husband  and  children on the demise
of   the   housewife.   In   its   wisdom,   the   legislature   had,
as   early   as   in   1994,   fixed   the   notional   income   of   a
non­earning   person   at   Rs.   15,000   per   annum   and   in
case   of   a   spouse,   1/3rd   income   of   the
earning/surviving   spouse   for   the   purpose   of
computing the compensation.”
8. The High Court, on the other  hand, proceeded on the basis
that it would be appropriate to fix the sum of Rs.34,385/­ as the
monthly   income   of   the   deceased   to   arrive   at   just   and   fair
compensation   in   quantifying   pecuniary   loss.   Reasoning   of   the
High Court on this aspect was:­
“Though   at   the   time   of   death,   the   deceased   Bala
Babitha was a housewife, earlier she was working in
a private company and earning a sum of Rs.34,385/­
per   month,   which   is   evident   from   Ex.Ps.23   &   24.
Hence,   it   would   be   appropriate   to   fix   the   sum   of
Rs.34,385/­   as   monthly   income   of   the   deceased   to
arrive   at   a   just   and   proper   compensation   under   the
head   of   pecuniary   loss.   If   a   sum   of   Rs.34,385/­   is
taken   as   monthly   income   of   the   deceased,   50%
amount   has   to   be   deducted   towards   personal
expenses   and   if   so   deducted,   the   monthly
contribution   to   the   family   works   out   to   Rs.17,193/­.
The   deceased   was   aged   37   years   at   the   time   of
accident;   hence,   the   correct   multiplier   that   has   to   be
applied   in   this   case   is   15.   If   the   multiplier   15   is
applied,   the   total   pecuniary   loss   works   out   to
Rs.30,94,740/­ (17,193 x 12 x 15). Consequently, the
sum   of   Rs.31,50,000/­   awarded   by   the   Tribunal
6

under   the   head   Pecuniary   Loss   is   hereby   modified
and reduced to Rs.30,94,740/­.”
         ( quoted verbatim from the paperbook)
9 . In our opinion, the judgment of the High Court on this point
suffers   from   error   on   two   counts.   At   the   time   of   her   death,   the
deceased was not in employment. She was a homemaker.   It was
not a case where the deceased at the time of accident had just left
her   job.     If   that   was   the   case,   her   last   drawn   salary   might   have
had given reliable guidance for computing her monthly income at
that   point   of   time.   Here   the   deceased   remained   without
employment   for   a   period   of   approximately   three   years   and   what
she earned prior to that ought not to have been treated to be her
monthly income to arrive at just and proper compensation under
the head of pecuniary  loss, as has been held by  the  High Court.
There is a long time gap between the time she was in employment
and   the   occurrence   of   the   accident.   Her   monthly   salary
approximately   three   years   back   thus   would   be   an   unreliable
guide for fixing her notional income when she succumbed to her
injuries   caused   by   the   accident.   Moreover,   at   the   time   of   the
accident,   she   was   a   homemaker   providing   care   and   support   to
her   family.   In   this   context,   in   our   opinion,   the   computation
7

methodology   prescribed   in   the   case   of   Arun   Kumar   Agrawal
(supra)   would   be   more   appropriate   to   apply,   which   was   done   by
the Tribunal.  
10. Plea   has   been   taken   before   us   on   behalf   of   the   insurance
company   that   the   appellants   could   not   take   a   stand   for
computing the income of the deceased in the manner held in the
case   of   Arun   Kumar   Agrawal   (supra),   since   before   the   High
Court,   they   had   run   a   case   that   the   pecuniary   loss   ought   to   be
computed on the basis of her last drawn salary.  Just because the
appellants urged their claim based on the last drawn salary of the
deceased   before   the   High   Court,   this   Court   ought   not   to   anchor
its decision on that argument alone. It remains open to this Court
to   examine   the   nature   of   the   claim   and   compute   the
compensation   on   a   different   criterion   applying   a   different
parameter.   This   is   more   so,   because   such   compensation   figure
could   be   arrived   at   on   the   basis   of   materials   on   record,   that
includes   evidence   on   monthly   earning   of   the   husband   of   the
deceased   and   the   applied  parameter   stands   judicially   recognised
as   a   legitimate   mode   for   computing   pecuniary   loss.   Further,   in
this   case,   plea   was   made   in   the   claim   petition   for   compensation
8

calculated  on   the   basis  of   one­third   of  the   husband’s   income.  In
the   petition   for   special   leave   to   appeals   also,   one   of   the   points
formulated is as to whether compensation on account of death of
Bala Babitha would be calculated on the basis of her last drawn
salary or her husband’s income. 
11.   Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stipulates:­
“ 168.  Award  of  the Claims Tribunal .—On receipt of
an   application   for   compensation   made   under   section
166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the
application   to   the   insurer   and   after   giving   the   parties
(including   the   insurer)   an   opportunity   of   being   heard,
hold   an   inquiry   into   the   claim   or,   as   the   case   may   be,
each   of   the   claims   and,   subject   to   the   provisions   of
section   163   may   make   an   award   determining   the
amount  of   compensation  which   appears  to   it  to   be   just
and   specifying   the   person   or   persons   to   whom
compensation   shall   be   paid   and   in   making   the   award
the   Claims   Tribunal   shall   specify   the   amount   which
shall   be   paid   by   the   insurer   or   owner   or   driver   of   the
vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them,
as the case may be: 
…..
(2)   The   Claims   Tribunal   shall   arrange   to   deliver   copies
of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and
in   any   case   within   a   period   of   fifteen   days   from   the
date of the award.
(3)   When   an   award   is   made   under   this   section,   the
person   who   is   required   to   pay   any   amount   in   terms   of
such   award   shall,   within   thirty   days   of   the   date   of
announcing the  award  by the  Claims  Tribunal, deposit
the   entire   amount   awarded   in   such   manner   as   the
Claims Tribunal may direct.”
12. The   aforesaid   provision   vests   the   Tribunal   with   the   power
and   jurisdiction   to   make   an   inquiry   into   claims   arising   out   of
9

deaths   and   injuries   caused   from   an   accident   and   make   award
determining  the  compensation  which   appears  to  it  to  be  just.    It
would   defeat   the  legislative  purpose   in   the  event   the   Tribunal   or
the Appellate Forum  is made to confine its inquiry to the plea of
the claimant as regards the factors which ought to be taken into
consideration   for   determining   the   compensation   amount.     Power
to   hold   an   inquiry   under   the   aforesaid   provision   cannot   be
construed   in   such   a   restrictive   manner.     If   the   factors   on   which
quantification   of   claim   is   asked   for   cannot   be   established,   the
adjudicatory   forum   under   the   1988   Act   would   stand   divested   of
its   power   to   arrive   at   just   compensation   even   if   in   course   of   the
proceeding,   materials   disclosed   could   justify   award   of
compensation based on certain criteria other than those on which
the   claim   is   founded.   In   the   instant   case,   we   find   that   the
Tribunal,   while   proceeding   to   award   compensation   to   the
appellants/claimants   had   relied   on   the   principle   laid   down   by
this Court in the case of   Arun Kumar Agrawal   (supra) and there
was   evidence   before   the   Tribunal   to   assess   the   income   of   the
husband   of   the   deceased.   In   fact,   the   first   appellant’s
compensation   was   quantified   taking   into   consideration   his   own
10

income   at   the   material   point   of   time.     In   our   opinion,   the   High
Court   ought   not   to   have   proceeded   on   the   basis   of   the   income
drawn   by   the   deceased   victim   approximately   three   years   before
the accident ended her life. The Tribunal did not indulge in pure
guesswork in pegging the notional income of the deceased to her
husband’s   income.   As   we   have   already   observed,   in   the   claim
petition   itself,   against   the   column   “Occupation   of   the   deceased”­
income   calculation   of   the   deceased   was   contemplated   on   the
basis of her husband’s income. The Tribunal had rightly followed
the course laid down in the case of  Arun Kumar Agrawal  (supra),
which   in   the   given   facts,   constituted,   a   more   definitive   and
reliable methodology for quantifying pecuniary loss.
13. So  far  as deduction on  account  of personal  expenses of the
deceased,   following   the   case   of   Sarla   Verma   (Smt)   and   Others
vs.   Delhi   Transport   Corporation   and   Another   [(2009)   6   SCC
121],   the   Tribunal   directed   deduction   of   1/3 rd
  of   the   earning   of
the   deceased,   the   latter   being   determined   on   the   income   of   her
spouse.     That   was,   in   our   view,   the   proper   course.   We   hold   so
because,   even   if   we   leave   out   the   husband   of   the   deceased   from
11

being   treated   as   a   dependent,   there   were   two   minor   children   at
the   material   point   of   time   who   ought   to   have   been   treated   as
dependent   family   members.   At   that   point   of   time   the   second
appellant   was   twelve   years   old   and   the   age   of   injured   daughter
was   three   years.     In   the   case   of   Sarla   Verma   (supra)   the
deduction   has   been   held   to   be   valid   in   a   case   where   there   were
dependent family members. We should not restrict the expression
“dependent”   to   mean   those   financially   dependent   only.     Minor
children are emotionally dependent on the mother. They lost care
and guidance of their mother at a very young age. While arriving
at   just   compensation,   the   Tribunal   ought   to   factor  in   the   loss   of
dependency in these terms.  
14. The High Court did not give any reason for deducting 50% in
computing   pecuniary   loss   and   we   do   not   think   this   was   the
correct   view.     We   are   of   the   view   that   deduction   of   1/3 rd
  of
determined income of the deceased towards personal expenses is
valid on the basis of the decision of this Court in the case of  Sarla
Verma   (supra).   We   also   find   that   neither   the   Tribunal   nor   the
High Court had considered loss of future prospect to arrive at the
12

quantum   of   pecuniary   loss.   In   the   case   of   Rajendra   Singh   and
Others   vs.   National   Insurance   Company   Limited   and   Others
[(2020) 7 SCC 256], addition of loss of future prospects has been
held to be a factor for determining compensation under the head
of pecuniary loss even in a case where the income of deceased is
arrived at on a notional basis. In this judgment it has been held:­
“11.   The  notional income of the first deceased is therefore
held   to   be   Rs   5000   per   month   at   the   time   of   death.   The
compensation on that basis with a deduction of 1/4th i.e.
Rs. 15,000 towards personal expenses with a multiplier of
17   is   assessed   at   Rs   7,65,000.   If   the   deceased   had
survived,   in   view   of   observations   in   Lata   Wadhwa   [Lata
Wadhwa   v.   State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197], her skills as
a   matured   and   skilled   housewife   in   contributing   to   the
welfare and care of the family and in the upbringing of the
children  would  have   only  been   enhanced  by  time  and   for
which reason we hold that the appellants shall be entitled
to   future   prospects   @   40%   in   addition   to   the   loss   of
consortium   and   future   expenses   already   granted.   We
therefore   assess   the   total   compensation   payable   to   the
appellants in the first appeal at Rs 11,96,000.”
15. The   deceased   was   37   years   old   at   the   time   of   her   death.
Hence,   there   ought   to   be   an   addition   of   40%   to   the   notional
income   of   the   deceased   towards   future   prospects   as   she   was
below 40 years of age. In the present case, it is not in dispute that
multiplier of 15 ought to be applied. In these circumstances, the
13

total   entitlement   of   the   appellants   under   the   head   of   pecuniary
loss would thus be:­
Monthly income of the 
deceased  Rs.26,250/­
future prospects @ 40% of 
the income (notional) Rs.26,250 x 40/100 = 
Rs.10,500/­
[Rs.26,250 + Rs.10,500 
= Rs.36,750/­]
Deduction of 1/3 rd
 for 
personal living expenses Rs.36,750 x 1/3 = 
Rs.12,250/­
[Rs.36,750 ­ Rs.12,250 
= Rs.24,500/­]
Total pecuniary loss of the 
deceased (with 15 as the 
multiplier) Rs.24,500 x 12 x 15 = 
Rs.44,10,000/­
16. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the High Court to
the   extent   of   computation   made   of   pecuniary   loss   on   account   of
death of said Bala Babitha for a sum Rs.30,94,740/­. We quantify
the said sum to be Rs.44,10,000/­.
17. Argument was also advanced on behalf of the respondents that
compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection is contrary
to  the  ratio   of  the  judgement  of  this   Court  in   case  of   United   India
Insurance   Company   Limited   vs.   Satinder   Kaur   Alias   Satwinder
Kaur and Others  [(2021) 11 SCC 780].   It was held in this decision
that   loss   of   love   and   affection   is   comprehended   in   loss   of
14

consortium,   and   there   is   no   justification   to   award   compensation
towards  loss   of  love   and  affection   as   a  separate   head.  The   relevant
paragraphs from the judgement are reproduced below:­
“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,   has   recognized   only   three
conventional   heads   under   which   compensation   can   be
awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses.   In   Magma   General,   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   jurisdiction   to
award compensation towards loss of love and affection as
a separate head.”
18. We accept this argument advanced by the respondents. The
High   Court   has   thus   committed   error   in   law   while   providing   for
compensation   under   the   heads   of   loss   of   love   and   affection   and
also   loss   of   consortium.   Instead,   in   our   opinion,   compensation
provided   under   the   head   of   loss   of   consortium   would   be   Rs.
40,000/­ for  each  appellant, comprehending  the  loss  of love  and
affection within it. Hence, the total compensation provided under
15

this   head   would   amount   to   Rs   1,60,000/­.   That   part   of   the
judgment of the High Court shall stand modified accordingly.
19. We find no reason to interfere with the High Court’s finding
as regards computation of compensation on other heads. Interest
of  7.5%  per  annum  has  been  awarded  by   both  the  Tribunal  and
the   High   Court.   We   do   not   disturb   the   concurrent   views   of   the
High   Court   and   the   Tribunal   on   the   rate   of   interest.   Certain
authorities   were   cited   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   in   support   of
their   argument   for   enhancing   the   rate   of   interest.   The   first   one,
reported in [(2001) 2 SCC 9] related to an accident that occurred
on 20 th
 March 1986. The next one, reported in [(2009) 8 SCC 507]
related to insurance claim on loss of stocks by fire and the date of
occurrence of the accident in that case was 24 th
 August 1999. The
bank rate of interest has fallen over the years and for this reason
we   sustain   the   award   of   the   Tribunal   and   the   High   Court   in
appeal on this point. 
The   total   amount   payable   to   the   appellants   on   account   of
death of Bala Babitha, thus, would be:­
Pecuniary loss  Rs. 44,10,000/­
Loss of consortium Rs. 1,60,000/­
Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/­
16

Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/­
Medical expenses Rs. 17,350/­
Total  Rs.46,17,350/­
20. The aforesaid sum shall be payable to the appellants in the
proportion   directed   by   the   High   Court   except   that   in   the   case   of
the   4 th
  appellant   (that   is   the   mother   of   the   deceased),   we   direct
lumpsum   payment   of   Rs.2,00,000/­   instead   of   Rs.1,00,000/­   as
directed   by   the   High   Court.   The   aforesaid   sum   shall   be   paid
within   two   months   from   this   date   adjusting   therefrom   any
amount   which   may   have   already   been   paid   to   the   appellants.
Unpaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment is made in
terms of this judgment and order.
21. The   appeals   are   allowed   in   the   above   terms,   without   any
order as to costs. 
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.
………………………………., J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI)
………………………………., J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
17

NEW DELHI;
11 th
 JULY 2022
18