The Supreme Court on Thursday significantly enhanced compensation for the family of a road accident victim, ruling that courts cannot ignore future income growth even when the deceased was earning a fixed monthly salary. The bench said denying such benefits goes against settled law and the idea of “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The case arose from a 2011 fatal accident in Tamil Nadu and had been pending in different courts for nearly 15 years.
Read also:- Rajasthan HC Overturns CRPF Dismissal, Says Short Absence Can’t Be Called Desertion
Background of the Case
The matter involved the death of D. Velu, a 37-year-old driver, who lost his life when a tanker lorry hit his two-wheeler. His widow, two minor children, and parents approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), seeking ₹20 lakh as compensation.
The tribunal held the lorry driver negligent but assessed Velu’s income at only ₹6,000 per month due to lack of documents. It awarded ₹9.37 lakh in total.
On appeal, the Madras High Court slightly raised the income figure to ₹7,000 and enhanced the compensation to ₹10.51 lakh. However, it refused to grant any amount for future prospects - an omission that led the family to move the Supreme Court.
What the Court Examined
At the Supreme Court, the central questions were narrow but important:
- Should the victim’s income be taken as ₹10,000 based on employer records?
- Is future income growth mandatory even for fixed-salary or self-employed workers?
- Can courts separately award compensation for “loss of love and affection”?
Court’s Observations
The bench carefully went through the salary certificate and the employer’s affidavit placed on record. It found no reason to discard the evidence.
“The determination of income must be founded on proof placed on record and cannot rest on conjecture,” the court observed, noting that the insurer had failed to challenge the authenticity of the documents.
On future prospects, the bench was firm. Referring to the Constitution Bench ruling in Pranay Sethi, the judges said that adding future income is no longer discretionary.
“The grant of future prospects is not a matter of choice but a binding norm,” the court noted, adding that failure to apply settled law amounted to a clear legal error.
The judges also reflected on the limits of monetary compensation, acknowledging that no amount can truly make up for the loss of a life. Still, the law demands fairness.
“Compensation is only a rough estimate - a token attempt to ease the financial burden on dependents,” the bench said during the hearing.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Membership Rights in Mumbai Housing Society Dispute Over Peddar Road Flat
On ‘Loss of Love and Affection’
The court declined to award compensation under a separate head for “loss of love and affection.” It clarified that such emotional loss is already covered under the broader concept of consortium, which includes spousal, parental, and filial consortium.
Citing earlier rulings, the bench stressed the need for consistency and said courts should avoid adding heads of compensation not recognised by binding precedent.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Membership Rights in Mumbai Housing Society Dispute Over Peddar Road Flat
Final Decision
After recalculating the figures, the Supreme Court more than doubled the compensation.
The victim’s monthly income was fixed at ₹10,000, with a 40% addition for future prospects. Applying the correct multiplier and permissible heads, the total compensation was enhanced to ₹20.80 lakh.
The insurance company has been directed to pay the balance amount within 12 weeks, along with 9% interest from the date of filing the claim petition.
With this, the long-running appeal was disposed of, bringing partial closure to a family that had been waiting for justice since 2011.
Case Title: V. Pathmavathi & Ors. vs Bharthi AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 23880 of 2022
Decision Date: 6 February 2026
