Supreme Court Expresses Reservations About CB Judgment That 'Loss Of Love & Affection' Can't Be Separately Compensated In Motor Accident Claims

The Supreme Court has expressed reservations about the Constitution Bench ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), which excludes non-pecuniary loss arising from deprivation of “love and affection” as a separate head while determining compensation in motor accident cases.A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma observed that while it remains bound by the Constitution Bench decision, it harbours unease with that aspect of the ruling which holds that the loss suffered due to deprivation of love and affection in fatal road accident cases cannot be awarded separately while computing compensation.In Pranay Sethi, it was held that non-pecuniary damages should be awarded only under three conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. It disapproved the grant of damages for "loss of love and affection" under a separate head.If Pranay Sethi's judgment had judicially evolved the head of 'future prospects' to be included while computing compensation, then why did it fail to manifest the deprivation in the form of loss of 'love and affection' out of a fatal accident, the bench questioned. “…it is difficult to ignore the conceptual tension that underlies this exclusion. The head of “future prospects” itself is a creation of judicial interpretation, evolved to respond to socioeconomic realities and the legitimate expectations of dependents. If the law is capable of recognising anticipated economic progression as a valid loss, it is not too clear why emotional deprivation manifested in loss of love and affection must be viewed as an impermissible head, especially when Chapter XII of the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation meant to help people in distress arising out of road accidents.”, the judgment authored by Justice Datta noted.BackgroundThe case arose from a fatal road accident that occurred on June 9, 2011, in which a 37-year-old driver lost his life. His widow, children, and mother filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Chennai. In 2012, the MACT awarded compensation of ₹9.37 lakh, assessing the deceased's income at ₹6,000 per month and declining to add future prospects. The Madras High Court marginally enhanced the award to ₹10.51 lakh by fixing the monthly income at ₹7,000, but again declined to add future prospects. The High Court also awarded ₹60,000 under the head of “loss of love and affection.” Against the High Court's grant of compensation, the deceased's dependents moved to the Supreme Court claiming more compensation. Though the Supreme Court increased the compensation, finding the High Court's calculation of compensation not as per the standard set in Pranay Sethi's judgment, it set aside the compensation awarded under the head of “loss of love and affection”, because of its adherence to the Pranay Sethi judgment which excluded the head of loss resulting from deprivation of 'love and affection'. Applying the law, the Court said that the High Court erred in awarding compensation under the head of “loss of love and affection”, as the earlier decision in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54, recognising “loss of love and affection” stands overruled by Pranay Sethi. Referring to Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SC 780, the Court noted that the concept of consortium has since been expanded to include spousal, parental, and filial consortium, and that emotional loss is comprehended within these heads. Thus, the Court awarded the loss of love and affection under the umbrella of "Loss of Consortium”, leading to an increase in total compensation to ₹20.80 lakh from an initial compensation of ₹9.37 lakh.“this Court is bound by the law declared by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), which does not countenance “loss of love and affection” as a distinct head of compensation. As subsequently clarified in Satinder Kaur (supra), referring to both Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance (supra), the non-pecuniary loss arising from deprivation of love and affection is comprehended within the broader head of “consortium”. Consequently, no separate award under the head of loss of love and affection is warranted.”, the court observed.HeadnoteMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 and 168 – Just Compensation – Future Prospects – Held: The addition of future prospects to the established income of the deceased is not a matter of judicial discretion but a mandatory legal requirement. For a deceased who was self-employed or on a fixed salary and below the age of 40 years, an addition of 40% towards future prospects is compulsory. The High Court erred in failing to apply this binding precedent. [Relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130; Paras 17, 18, 19]Motor Vehicles Act,...

Supreme Court Expresses Reservations About CB Judgment That 'Loss Of Love & Affection' Can't Be Separately Compensated In Motor Accident Claims

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Supreme Court Expresses Reservations About CB Judgment That 'Loss Of Love & Affection' Can't Be Separately Compensated In Motor Accident Claims

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers