LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 13 May 2025

Which heads must a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal take into account when computing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

DEEP SHIKHA & ANR v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
2025 INSC 675
Coram: Sudhanshu Dhulia; K. Vinod Chandran
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.140 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

All the factors laid down in Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma — loss of future income and estate, the quantum to be awarded for funeral expenses, and loss of consortium. Applying them here the Court took the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.24,406, added 15% future prospect, deducted 50% for personal and living expenses, and applied a multiplier of 11 for the age bracket 51-55, giving loss of future income of Rs.18,52,356, to which were added Rs.15,000 funeral expenses, Rs.15,000 loss of estate and Rs.40,000 filial consortium.

Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 140, 166, 168 — Compensation — Loss of dependency — Legal representative — Married daughter — Dependent mother — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 140, 166 — Married daughter — Legal representative without dependency — Held: A married daughter is a legal representative and keeps her Section 140 entitlement, which does not cease to exist in the absence of dependency, but she gets loss of dependency only on proving she was financially dependent on the deceased. (¶13, 14) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 166, 168 — Dependent parent — Future dependency — Held further: A parent who lived with the deceased and had no independent income is a dependent; the obligation of a child to maintain a parent in old age matches the parent's duty during minority, and future dependency cannot be disregarded. (¶15, 16) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.168 — Just compensation — Heads of award — Held further: A Tribunal that omits loss of future income and estate, funeral expenses and consortium has not applied the Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma factors; compensation to the mother recomputed at Rs.19,22,356 and the appeals disposed of. (¶18, 19, 20)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 18The Tribunal vide its order had awarded Rs. 15,97,000/- as compensation to the Appellants. However, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal did not consider all the factors laid down by this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, such as loss of future income and estate, quantum to be awarded for funeral expenses, loss of consortium. We have done our own calculation for awarding compensation to Appellant No. 2, which is as follows: Calculation of Compensation Income of the deceased [monthly] Rs. 24,406 Future Prospect 15% Deduction of personal & living expenses 50% Total Monthly Income 24,406 + 3660 – 50% = Rs. 14,033 Multiplier [age 51-55] 11 Loss of Future Income 14,033 x 11 x 12 = Rs.18,52,356 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000 Loss of Consortium [filial consortium] Rs.40,000 Total Compensation 18,52,356 + 15,000 + 15,000 + 40,000 = Rs.19,22,356
Paragraph 19Thus, taking into consideration all relevant factors such as the total income of the deceased, loss of estate, loss of filial consortium etc, Appellant No. 2 is entitled to compensation of Rs.19,22,356/-.
Acts & Sections
s.140 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s.166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s.168 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of DEEP SHIKHA & ANR v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a married daughter of the deceased entitled to loss of dependency compensation simply because she is a legal representative?Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, when is the mother of the deceased treated as a dependent for the purpose of compensation?What is the scope of Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in a motor accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections