SUNITA & ORS.versusVINOD SINGH & ORS.

                  [2025] 3 S.C.R. 811 : 2025 INSC 366

                           Sunita & Ors.
                          A1: Smt. Sunita
                             A2: Rakhi
                             A3: Rahul
                             A4: Rohit
                             A5: Baby
                             A6: Savita
                             A7: Pooja
                             A8: Priya
                                 v.
                        Vinod Singh & Ors.
                         R1: Vinod Singh
                         R2: Harish Chand
              R3: New India Assurance Company Ltd.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 4021 of 2025)
                                 19 March 2025
     [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to the adequacy of compensation granted to the
       appellants under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

                                   Headnotes†
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Fatal accident – Compensation –
       Computation of – Victim crushed to death by the offending
       truck being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent
       manner – Appellant’s case that the deceased was aged about
       45 years at the time of her death and was earning a monthly
       income of Rs.10,000/- – Claim petition – Tribunal awarded
       compensation of Rs.4,31,680/- which was enhanced by the
       High Court to Rs.5,96,761/- – Correctness:
       Held: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation
       and it is the duty of the Court to award ‘just compensation’ – Monthly
       income coming to Rs.7,637/- rounded off at Rs.7000/- – Sufficient
       indication that the deceased was aged about 45 years as per the

* Author
812                                                          [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       Post-Mortem Report which is a scientific assessment of the age
       of the deceased – Multiplier of 14 granted taking her age as 45
       years – For loss of love and affection, Rs.40,000/- per head with
       escalation of 10% every three years of loss of consortium, granted
       to five claimants as per formula approved – Expenses for funeral
       and transportation increased from Rs.10,000/- to 20,000/- – Loss
       of future prospects assessed at 25% – Courts below took the
       deduction for personal expenses to be 1/5th, however, the same
       is taken to be 1/4th and the compensation is quantified – Total
       compensation of Rs.13,82,500/- awarded with 7.5% interest per
       annum which would be pro rata if any amount has been paid –
       Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 11, 12, 14-17]

                               Case Law Cited
       Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd. [2020] 6 SCR
       579 : (2020) 7 SCC 256; National Insurance Company Limited v.
       Pranay Sethi [2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla
       Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009] 5 SCR 1098 : (2009)
       6 SCC 121 – relied on.
       Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram [2018] 11 SCR 664 :
       (2018) 18 SCC 130; Ningamma v. United India Insurance Company
       Limited [2009] 8 SCR 683 : (2009) 13 SCC 710 – referred to.

                                   List of Acts
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

                              List of Keywords
       Compensation; Multiplier; Deduction for personal expenses;
       Monthly income; Loss of dependency; Expenses for funeral
       and transportation; Loss of love and affection; Loss of care and
       guidance of minors; Loss of estate; Notional wages as home maker;
       Multiplier factor dependent on age; Scientific assessment of age;
       Discrepancy in age; Loss of future prospects; Just compensation.

                             Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4021 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2018 of the High Court
       of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 3026 of 2016
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                        813

                    Sunita & Ors. v. Vinod Singh & Ors.


                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Bharat Bhushan, Keshav Bansal.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Ranjan Kumar Pandey, K. K. Bhat.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

     Leave granted.

2.   The present appeal mounts a challenge to the Final Judgment and
     Order dated 24.05.2018 in FAO No.3026/2016 (O&M) (hereinafter
     referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by a learned Single Bench
     of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter
     referred to as the ‘High Court’), whereby the appeal filed by the
     appellants was partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the
     learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred
     to as the ‘MACT’) was enhanced from Rs.4,31,680/- (Rupees Four
     Lakhs Thirty-One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty) to Rs.5,96,761/-
     (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety-Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty
     One) and interest was enhanced from 7% per annum to 7.5% per
     annum. After the matter traversed to this Court, it was referred to the
     Special Lok Adalat held in this Court on 31.07.2024, but the parties
     concerned could not reach an agreement.

     FACTUAL PREMISE:
3.   Briefly stated, the case set up by the appellants is that on 07.02.2003
     at around 07:00 a.m., Smt. Tarawati, was going on foot to the bus
     stand of Village Sanjarwas Phogat, when the offending truck bearing
     Registration No.HR-46A-1118 being driven by the respondent no.1
     came in a rash and negligent manner and crushed her to death.
     It was averred that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the
     time of her death and was earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-
     (Rupees Ten Thousand), inclusive of income from agriculture and
     family pension. The appellants filed a claim petition bearing MVA
814                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       Petition No.30 of 2003 claiming a total of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees
       Fifteen Lakhs). The MACT vide Award/Order dated 31.08.2015
       awarded a compensation of Rs.4,31,680/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
       Thirty-One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty) along with interest at the
       rate of 7% per annum in the following manner:

       S. No.           Head of Compensation                  Amount
          1      Monthly Income                              Rs.5,100/-
          2      Multiplier                                       8
          3      Deduction for personal expenses                1/5th
          4      Loss of dependency                        Rs.3,91,680/-
          5      Expenses for funeral and transportation    Rs.10,000/-
          6      Loss of love and affection                 Rs.20,000/-
          7      Loss of care and guidance of minors        Rs.10,000/-
          8                         Total                  Rs.4,31,680/-

4.     Aggrieved by the MACT’s Award, the appellants approached the High
       Court by filing First Appeal from Order No.3026 of 2016 (O&M). The
       High Court, vide the Impugned Order, partly allowed the appeal and
       enhanced the compensation by Rs.1,65,081/- (Rupees One Lakh
       Sixty-Five Thousand Eighty-One). The High Court computed and
       granted compensation under various heads as under:

        S. No.           Head of Compensation                 Amount
          1      Monthly Income                              Rs.5,819/-
          2      Multiplier                                      9
          3      Deduction for personal expenses                1/5th
                                                           (only on family
                                                              pension)
          4      Loss of dependency                        Rs.5,56,761/-
          5      Expenses for funeral and transportation    Rs.10,000/-

          6      Loss of love and affection                 Rs.20,000/-
          7      Loss of care and guidance of minors        Rs.10,000/-
          8                         Total                  Rs.5,96,761/-
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                     815

                    Sunita & Ors. v. Vinod Singh & Ors.


     SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:
5.   Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the compensation
     awarded by the High Court is inadequate and ought to be modified.
     It was put forth that the age of the deceased has been taken as 60
     years purely on conjecture, presuming that as per societal norms,
     the wife would be two years younger to her husband. This flawed
     reasoning has been upheld by the High Court in the Impugned Order,
     inter alia, assuming the age of claimant no.1 as 42 years. It was
     argued that the aforesaid reasoning is incorrect inasmuch as the
     age of claimant no.1 was recorded as 30 years in the claim petition
     and the Post-Mortem Report dated 07.02.2003 clearly records the
     age of the deceased as being 45 years.
6.   It was further contended that the High Court erred in computing the
     income of the deceased. The total family pension of the deceased
     was Rs.5,137/- (Rupees Five Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Seven)
     which includes family pension of Rs.3,319/- (Rupees Three Thousand
     Three Hundred Nineteen), Dearness Allowance of Rs.1,693/- (Rupees
     One Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety-Three) and medical allowance
     of Rs.125/- (Rupees One Hundred and Twenty-Five), which is
     substantiated by the bank account statement(s) of the deceased.
     Learned counsel relied upon Rajendra Singh v National Insurance
     Company Ltd., (2020) 7 SCC 256 and argued that the notional
     income alone of the deceased housewife ought to have been taken
     as Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand).
7.   It was further argued that High Court did not award the compensation
     under the various heads in terms of the decision in National
     Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
     As per learned counsel, a total of Rs.18,74,630/- (Rupees Eighteen
     Lakhs Seventy-Four Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty) ought to
     be granted in compensation. Hence, prayer was made to allow the
     appeal and enhance the compensation.

     SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3/INSURANCE
     COMPANY:
8.   Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3-Insurance
     Company argued that the High Court applied its mind judiciously
     and thoughtfully to every aspect of the case and every observation
     in the Impugned Order is based on evidence. The High Court has
816                                                        [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       come to an inescapable conclusion that the appellants are entitled
       to compensation of Rs.5,96,761/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety-Six
       Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-One) only and nothing more than
       that. This indeed is based on the guidelines of the Courts, as laid
       down from time to time, and there is no justification for claiming
       more compensation under such circumstances. It was argued that
       sympathies cannot override the applicable law and the compensation
       awarded is fair and reasonable overall. Prayer was made to dismiss
       the appeal.

       ANALYSIS, REASONING & CONCLUSION:
9.     Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on
       record. At the outset, we note that service to respondents no.1 and 2
       was dispensed with by the Order dated 21.10.2019 by the Judge-in-
       Chambers in view of the position that the said two respondents had
       not appeared either before the MACT or the High Court.
10. The issue, in our opinion, has to be seen in a narrow compass related
    to the monthly income and multiplier within the parameters of the
    formula fixed in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009)
    6 SCC 121 as also with regard to the loss of love and affection, loss
    of care and guidance to minor and deduction for personal expenses.
11. The amount arrived at by the High Court of the monthly income being
    Rs.5,819/- (Rupees Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Nineteen) as
    against the claim of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) appears
    to be on the lower side as the total earning of the deceased from
    family pension itself ought to have been considered which itself
    would come to Rs.5,137/- (Rupees Five Thousand One Hundred
    and Thirty-Seven) to which the notional wages as a home maker
    had to be added, which we find is reasonable as has been taken by
    the High Court at Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred).
    Thus, the monthly income would come to Rs.7,637/- (Rupees Seven
    Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty-Seven), which we are inclined to
    round off at Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand). Coming to the
    multiplier factor which is dependent on the age, there is sufficient
    indication that the deceased was aged about 45 years as per the
    Post-Mortem Report which is a scientific assessment of the age of
    the deceased. The purported discrepancy in the age with regard to
    that of the claimant and the deceased is erroneous for the reason
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                        817

                    Sunita & Ors. v. Vinod Singh & Ors.


     that when the claim was filed, appellant no.1 was aged about
     30 years and a difference of 15 years between the daughter-in-law
     and the mother-in-law cannot be said to be totally devoid of reality
     given the contextual and prevalent societal norms in vogue at the
     time of marriage of the deceased which could have been at least 25
     to 30 years prior to her death i.e., in or about the 1970s. Moreover,
     in the absence of material indicating to the contrary, there is no
     inhibition to accept the age of the deceased as per the Post-Mortem
     Report. Thus, we are inclined to grant her the benefit of multiplier
     of 14 taking her age as 45 years. With regard to the loss of love
     and affection, Pranay Sethi (supra) grants Rs.40,000/- (Rupees
     Forty Thousand) per head with escalation of 10% every three
     years for loss of consortium which has been interpreted in Magma
     General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 to
     include spousal, parental, and filial consortium. Thus, there being
     five claimants the amount shall be [Rs.48,000/- x 5] which comes
     to Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Forty Thousand) payable
     under the head of loss of love and affection.
12. We have taken the afore-view based on the material before the
    Court and what has come during trial as also the formula approved
    and invoked as per the earlier precedents of this Court, including
    those referred to hereinbefore. Under the head of funeral expenses
    and transportation also, the amount is increased from Rs.10,000/-
    (Rupees Ten Thousand) to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand).
    No payment shall be made under the head of loss of care and
    guidance of minors as we factored in the same under the head of
    loss of love and affection with regard to all claimants. The MACT
    and so also the High Court, however, have not borne in mind the
    aspect qua loss of future prospects.
13. In Rajendra Singh (supra), the Court held:
           ‘9. The first deceased was a housewife aged about 30
           years. In Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar [Lata Wadhwa v.
           State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197], this Court had observed
           that considering the multifarious services rendered by
           housewives, even on a modest estimation, the income of
           a housewife between the age group of 34 to 59 years who
           were active in life should be assessed at Rs 36,000 p.a.
           A distinction was also drawn with regard to elderly ladies
818                                                      [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


       in the age group of 62 to 72 who would be more adept
       in discharge of housewife duties by age and experience,
       and the value of services rendered by them has been
       taken at Rs 20,000 p.a.
       10. In Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
       [Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010)
       9 SCC 218: (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 664: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
       1313], the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the
       housewife at Rs 5000 per month, but without any rationale
       or reasoning concluded that she was a non-earning
       member and reduced the same to Rs 2500, which was
       affirmed [Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co.
       Ltd., FAFO No. 2408 of 2003, order dated 30-4-2004 (All)]
       by the High Court. Disapproving the same and restoring
       the assessed income, this Court observed at paras 26
       and 27 as follows : (SCC pp. 237-38)
       “26. In India the courts have recognised that the contribution
       made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot
       be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services
       rendered by the wife with true love and affection to the
       children and her husband and managing the household
       affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by
       others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is
       in the constant attendance of the family throughout the
       day and night unless she is employed and is required to
       attend the employer’s work for particular hours. She takes
       care of all the requirements of the husband and children
       including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She
       teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance
       to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant
       can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing
       clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean, etc., but she
       can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders
       selfless service to her husband and children.
       27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the
       services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. the
       husband and children. However, for the purpose of award
       of compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                         819

                    Sunita & Ors. v. Vinod Singh & Ors.


           estimate has to be made of the services of the housewife/
           mother. In that context, the term “services” is required
           to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by
           taking into account the loss of personal care and attention
           given by the deceased to her children as a mother and
           to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate
           compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services
           rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the
           dependants cannot be diminished on the ground that some
           close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render
           some of the services to the family which the deceased
           was giving earlier.”
           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.’
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

14. We express our respectful agreement with Rajendra Singh (supra)
    and, accordingly, assess loss of future prospects at 25%, bearing in
    mind the dicta in Pranay Sethi (supra). In undertaking the exercise
    of computation of compensation, we have verily reminded ourselves
    that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation
    and it is our duty to award ‘just compensation’ [refer Ningamma v
    United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 13 SCC 710].
15. We maintain the interest granted by the High Court at 7.5% per
    annum from the date of the petition as the incident is of the year
820                                                        [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                                  Supreme Court Reports


       2003. Though, the Courts below have taken the deduction for personal
       expenses to be 1/5th, however, having regard to the law laid down
       in Sarla Verma (supra) we take the same to be 1/4th and quantify
       the compensation as per the chart below:

           S. No.          Head of Compensation              Amount
              1      Monthly Income                         Rs.7,000/-
              2      Future Prospects @ 25%                 Rs.1,750/-
              3      Deduction for Personal Expenses           1/4th
              4      Multiplier                                 14
              5      Loss of dependency                   Rs.11,02,500/-
              6      Expenses for funeral and              Rs.20,000/-
                     transportation
              7      Loss of love and affection           Rs.2,40,000/-
              8      Loss of estate                        Rs.20,000/-
              9                        Total              Rs.13,82,500/-

16. Accordingly, the amount be paid with 7.5% interest per annum from
    the date of filing of the claim till date of realization within 2 months
    from today, if already not paid. We further clarify that the rate of
    interest would be pro rata if any amount has been paid for the period
    for which such interest is to be paid, taking into consideration the
    date on which such interim or part-payment has been made by the
    respondent no.3 earlier to the claimants concerned.
17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the above-mentioned terms.
    The Impugned Order is set aside.
18. No order as to costs.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain