Compensation for Death in Motor Accident under Section 166 MV Act
A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeks 'just compensation' for the legal representatives of a person killed in a road accident. The tribunal must determine the loss of dependency by establishing the deceased's income, adding future prospects, deducting personal expenses, and applying the correct multiplier. The ultimate award must also include sums under conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses.
The Supreme Court has standardised the computation framework through a series of decisions. The multiplier and deduction for personal expenses are governed by the principles in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., while the addition for future prospects and the fixed conventional heads were settled in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Somwati and Others further clarified that loss of love and affection is subsumed within loss of consortium, and that consortium is payable to each claimant.
The leading cases
12 judgments · 12 Supreme Court · most-cited first
What LexPilot's research engine returns for this question, ranked by court and how often each judgment has been cited since. Read the full judgment before you rely on a holding.
- 1
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.
2017 INSC 1068Supreme Court · 2017cited 9,406 times
1. Just compensation under s. 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 must be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability; tribunals must be guided by the multiplier formula in Sarla Verma…
- 2
Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
2009 INSC 506Supreme Court · 2009cited 4,979 times
Appeal partly allowed. Standardised guidelines laid down for compensation in motor accident death claims: (a) 50%/30%/nil addition for future prospects by age band; (b) pay revisions during litigation pendency excluded…
- 3
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.
2018 INSC 828Supreme Court · 2018cited 2,575 times
The High Court's finding on the deceased's income (Rs.6,000 p.m.) and treating the father and sister as dependents with a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses is upheld. However, future prospects are reduced from 50%…
- 4
Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others
2013 INSC 248Supreme Court · 2013cited 1,399 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It clarified and applied the principles for awarding just compensation. It held that for self-employed persons or those on fixed wages, future prospects must be added to actual…
- 5
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra
2012 INSC 18Supreme Court · 2012cited 985 times
The appeals were dismissed. (i) Charges under ss. 304(Part II) and 338 IPC for a single rash or negligent act done with knowledge of likely dangerous consequences are not mutually destructive and can legally co-exist.…
- 6
Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. Etc v. R.S. Nayak and Anr. etc. Etc
1991INSC329Supreme Court · 1991cited 913 times
1. The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution, encompassing all stages of criminal proceedings from investigation to retrial. (354-H; 355A-C; 377-E) 2. While it is not…
- 7
Shanti Sports Club & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
2009 INSC 1077Supreme Court · 2009cited 706 times
Appeals dismissed. Withdrawal from acquisition under s. 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must be effected by notification in the official Gazette; a ministerial file-noting cannot constitute a Government…
- 8
Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Singh & Ors.
2019 INSC 996Supreme Court · 2019cited 673 times
Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 is unconstitutional to the extent it excludes solatium and interest from compensation for compulsory acquisition. The 1997 Amendment Act, whose object was solely to speed…
- 9
N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
1998 INSC 345Supreme Court · 1998cited 672 times
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in upsetting the trial court's order condoning the delay. The explanation for the delay was satisfactory, and the appellant's conduct did not warrant being castigated as…
- 10
The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Somwati and Others
2020 INSC 535Supreme Court · 2020cited 645 times
The appeals are partly allowed. The award of compensation under the head 'loss of love and affection' is set aside as it is subsumed within 'loss of consortium'. However, the awards granting consortium (spousal…
- 11
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr.
1978 INSC 223Supreme Court · 1979cited 609 times
The Supreme Court upheld the discharge, affirming the principles governing section 227 Cr.P.C. The Judge at the charge-framing stage must sift the evidence to determine if there is sufficient ground to proceed. In this…
- 12
State of Bihar & Anr. v. Sunny Prakash & Ors.
2013 INSC 41Supreme Court · 2013cited 576 times
Appeal dismissed. (1) The provisions of Art. 166 of the Constitution are only directory and not mandatory; if they are not complied with, it can be established as a question of fact that an impugned order was in fact…
Frequently asked questions
What multiplier should be applied for a 35-year-old deceased?
For a deceased aged 35 years, the appropriate multiplier is 16, as per the table laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. The multiplier is selected based on the age of the deceased, not the dependants.
How are future prospects added to the income of a salaried deceased?
For a salaried person with a permanent job, 50% of the actual salary is added towards future prospects if the deceased was below 40 years of age, as held in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. This addition is made to the established income before calculating the loss of dependency.
What is the deduction for personal expenses when the deceased is survived by a widow and two children?
Where the deceased is married and leaves behind a widow and two children, the number of dependants is three. Following the guidelines in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., a one-fourth deduction towards personal and living expenses is applied.
What are the conventional heads of compensation payable in a death case?
The conventional heads are loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. fixed these amounts, and The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Somwati and Others clarified that spousal and parental consortium are distinct and payable to each eligible claimant, while loss of love and affection is not a separate head.
Free trial · Research assistance, not legal advice — always read the judgment before you rely on it.