A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Sunita & Ors. v. Vinod Singh & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 811 : 2025 INSC 366, considers adequacy of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 where a truck driven in a rash and negligent manner crushed and killed Smt. Tarawati on 07.02.2003. The claimants pleaded the deceased’s age as about 45 years and monthly earnings of Rs.10,000/ (inclusive of family pension and agricultural income). The MACT awarded Rs.4,31,680/; the High Court enhanced it to Rs.5,96,761/.

On appeal, this Court examined:

(i) computation of monthly income (including notional wages for a housewife),

(ii) appropriate multiplier (dependent on age as per Sarla Verma),

(iii) deduction for personal expenses,

(iv) allowance for loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, and

(v) loss of future prospects.

Relying on post-mortem age assessment and precedents including Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Pranay Sethi, the Court fixed monthly income at Rs.7,000/ (rounded), applied a multiplier of 14, allowed 25% for future prospects, assessed loss of love and affection at Rs.40,000/ per claimant escalated by 10% per three years (adopting the Pranay formula and Magma interpretation), increased funeral expenses to Rs.20,000/, and changed personal deduction to 1/4th (per Sarla Verma). Total compensation quantified at Rs.13,82,500/ with 7.5% p.a. interest. The judgment reiterates that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is remedial and courts must award just compensation guided by established precedents.

Keywords: Compensation; Multiplier; Deduction for personal expenses; Notional wages; Loss of future prospects.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal challenges computation of compensation awarded after a fatal motor accident dated 07.02.2003 in which the deceased, Smt. Tarawati, was crushed by a truck allegedly driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1. The claim petition (MVA Petition No.30 of 2003) sought Rs.15,00,000/. The MACT awarded Rs.4,31,680/ (monthly income treated at Rs.5,100/; multiplier 8; 1/5th deduction). The High Court in FAO No.3026/2016 enhanced the award to Rs.5,96,761/ by re-computing monthly income at Rs.5,819/ and applying multiplier 9 but retained certain heads (see table reproduced on page 4 of the record).

The Supreme Court was called upon to examine legal correctness of:

(a) the age determination and hence the multiplier,

(b) components of monthly income (family pension plus notional homemaker wages),

(c) proper percentage for loss of future prospects,

(d) quantum under loss of consortium/love and affection,

(e) appropriate deduction for personal expenses, and

(f) funeral and funeral transportation expenses.

The Court also considered whether past precedent rules Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, Rajendra Singh were applied correctly by lower fora. The record includes documentary material (bank statements, post-mortem) and tables of award computation compiled at MACT and High Court levels (see tabular summaries on pages 3–4 of the judgment).

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 07.02.2003 at about 07:00 a.m., Smt. Tarawati was walking to the village bus stand when the offending truck HR-46A-1118, driven by respondent no.1, struck and crushed her leading to death. The claimants (family members) asserted that the deceased was about 45 years old and earned Rs.10,000/ per month (inclusive of family pension, agriculture and other earnings).

A claim petition for Rs.15,00,000/ was filed. The MACT (award dated 31.08.2015) treated monthly income as Rs.5,100/ and applied multiplier 8, deducted 1/5th for personal expenses and awarded Rs.4,31,680/. The claimants appealed. The High Court (impugned order dated 24.05.2018) raised the monthly income to Rs.5,819/ and the multiplier to 9, resulting in an award of Rs.5,96,761/.

The appellants challenged age finding, the exclusion/valuation of family pension and notional homemaker income, the omission or reduction of heads such as loss of future prospects, and the small quantum for consortium and funeral expenses. The insurers supported the High Court approach. The post-mortem report recorded the deceased’s age as 45 years and bank documents evidenced family pension receipts. The Supreme Court record includes the tables of calculation used by MACT and High Court (see page 4).

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the post-mortem age assessment of the deceased at about 45 years should govern the multiplier and displace the High Court’s inference?
ii. Whether family pension plus notional wages for a homemaker should be aggregated to compute monthly income?
iii. What is the appropriate multiplier and deduction for personal expenses in the facts of this case?
iv. Whether loss of future prospects should be awarded and at what percentage?
v. What is the proper quantum for loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and loss of estate?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that the High Court undervalued the deceased’s income and erred in treating ages by conjecture; that the post-mortem showing age 45 years is scientific and should fix the multiplier; that family pension receipts (total Rs.5,137/) must be added to appropriate notional wages for a housewife (citing Rajendra Singh and Lata Wadhwa precedents), and that notional wages should not be arbitrarily reduced; that loss of future prospects and enhanced consortium awards per Pranay Sethi were not properly granted; hence overall compensation should be substantially increased (claiming Rs.18,74,630/).

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondents (Insurance Company) contended that the High Court applied the law judiciously, that the monthly income fixed was reasonable based on evidence, and that sympathy cannot override established legal principles. They urged that the award is fair and that the Apex Court should dismiss the appeal. The insurer relied on the calculations and the factual findings of the High Court.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Court accepted the post-mortem age assessment of 45 years and held that the High Court’s assumption about ages based on societal norms was untenable in face of scientific evidence. The Court examined family pension receipts totaling Rs.5,137/ and endorsed addition of notional wages for a homemaker; after evaluating precedents (notably Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [2020] 6 SCR 579 : (2020) 7 SCC 256 and Lata Wadhwa reasoning quoted in that case), it fixed notional homemaker contribution at Rs.2,500/ per month.

Aggregating pension and notional wages produced Rs.7,637/ which the Court rounded down to Rs.7,000/ as monthly income. Given the deceased’s 45 years age, the Court applied a multiplier of 14 in line with Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121. The Court held that loss of future prospects must be recognized and, considering engine-room precedents including Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Rajendra Singh (2020), awarded 25% (conservative relative to higher figures in some precedents), mindful of remedial purpose of MV Act and objective of just compensation.

The Court changed deduction for personal expenses from 1/5th to 1/4th per Sarla Verma. For loss of love and affection it applied Rs.40,000/ per head with escalation of 10% every three years per Pranay Sethi, and following Magma interpretation allowed that head for spousal, parental and filial consortium arriving at Rs.48,000/ (after first escalation) per claimant and total Rs.2,40,000/ for five claimants.

Funeral expenses were increased to Rs.20,000/; loss of care and guidance of minors was subsumed under love and affection. The Court compiled the compensation chart and quantified the total at Rs.13,82,500/, awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from date of claim, and set aside the impugned High Court order. The judgment repeatedly emphasized that MV Act being welfare legislation requires courts to be liberal in awarding just compensation, while still rooted in precedents.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The controlling ratio is: where reliable medical/scientific evidence (post-mortem) indicates age, that assessment must govern multiplier selection; family pension receipts are to be aggregated with a reasonable notional homemaker income to compute monthly dependency; deduction for personal expenses should normally be 1/4th; loss of future prospects is to be awarded depending on age and earning capacity (here fixed at 25%), and loss of consortium compensation should follow the Pranay Sethi template with suitable escalation and application to spousal/parental/filial claims as clarified in Magma. These principles yield just compensation in line with remedial purpose of the Act.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed obiter that societal presumptions about relative ages are no substitute for documentary or medical evidence; that tribunals should avoid parsimonious valuations of homemaker services; and that trial and appellate fora must expressly reckon loss of future prospects unless cogent reasons exist to exclude it. The Court reiterated judicial admonition that sympathy cannot replace evidence, yet courts must ensure compensation fulfils the compensatory mandate of MV Act.

c. GUIDELINES

1. Accept post-mortem age findings unless contradicted by reliable material.

2. Aggregate documented family pension with a reasonable notional homemaker income when computing monthly earnings.

3. Apply multiplier according to Sarla Verma bracketings tied to age.

4. Deduct 1/4th for personal living expenses unless evidence mandates otherwise.

5. Award loss of future prospects (percentage to be fixed after weighing age, skills, and precedents).

6. Apply Pranay Sethi formula for loss of consortium with periodic escalation and allow for spousal, parental, filial claims as guided by Magma.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Court’s recalculation is anchored in evidence (post-mortem age and pension records) and established precedent, balancing compensatory fairness with judicial restraint. Its approach shows judicial sensitivity to the pecuniary valuation of homemaker services while refusing to countenance speculative assumptions. By rounding monthly income to Rs.7,000/, applying multiplier 14, awarding 25% for future prospects, and enhancing non-pecuniary heads (consortium and funeral), the Court substantially augmented the award to Rs.13,82,500/ with 7.5% interest.

The decision reaffirms that tribunals must adopt a principled, precedent-driven method:

(i) accept scientific age evidence;

(ii) include documented pension and notional homemaker contribution;

(iii) apply Sarla Verma multiplier logic;

(iv) allow loss of future prospects in appropriate measure; and

(v) follow Pranay Sethi/Magma guidance for consortium awards.

This judgment will serve as a practical illustration for courts to avoid undervaluation of dependence and to apply established formulas to secure just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Sunita & Ors. v. Vinod Singh & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 811 : 2025 INSC 366.
ii. Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd., [2020] 6 SCR 579 : (2020) 7 SCC 256.
iii. National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100.
iv. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098.
v. Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : [2018] 11 SCR 664.
vi. Ningamma v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 13 SCC 710 : [2009] 8 SCR 683.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, No. 59 of 1988 (India).