The new benchmark in compensation in Motor Accident Claim: Case Analysis on National Insurance

Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1270

I. Facts of the Case

Prior to this Judgement, the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121.
settled the principles of motor accidents compensation and laid down the guidelines for computation of motor
accidents compensation. The court observed that the concept of ‘just compensation’ is based on ‘fairness,
reasonable, equitable’. Thereafter, several cases were about to decide by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in regards
to the compensations. In meantime the difference of opinion aroused by the full bench while deciding the Res
hma Kumari & ors. Vs Madan Mohan and Rajesh & ors. Vs Rajbir Singh. Therefore, the matter was referred to
the constitution bench to lay down guidelines on the fixation of future prospects in cases of motor accidents for
victims who are permanently employed, receiving a fixed salary, or self-employed.

II. Issues raised

1. Whether the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Act should be scrupulously
applied in all the cases?
2. Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards
determination of future prospects?”
III. Judgement
1. The table for multiplier given in Sarla Verma case has to be approved and shall be applied to remove
any discrepancies.
2. If for the selection of multiplier, Column (4) of the Table in Sarla Verma is followed, there is no
likelihood of the claimants who have chosen to apply under Section 166 being awarded lesser amount on
proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle than those who prefer to apply
under Section 163-A. As regards the cases where the age of the victim happens to be up to 15 years, we
are of the considered opinion that in such cases irrespective of Section 163-A or Section 166 under
which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the
Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the Table in Sarla Verma should
be followed. 
3. To ensure that the claimants in such cases are not awarded lesser amount when the application is made
under Section 166 of the 1988 Act. In all other cases of death where the application has been made
under Section 166, the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the Table in Sarla Verma should be
followed.” 
4. The court observed that now its high time to move towards a standard method of selection of multiplier,
income for future prospects and deductions for personal and living expenses.
5. The determination of income shall be now increased by 50% of actual salary to the income of the
deceased towards future prospects, in case where the deceased had a permanent job and is below 40
years of age. In case the deceased is 40-50 years of age then the addition of 30% of actual salary to be
made for future prospects, and when the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years. If the age of
deceased is 50-60 years then the addition of 15% of actual salary has to be made.
6. If the deceased was self-employed or on a fix salary the addition of 40% has to be made for the age up to
40 years, and an addition of 25% shall to be made if the deceased was between 40-50 years and 10%
addition has be made if the deceased age is 50-60 years.
7. Reasonable figures on conventional heads has been fixed as under:
a. loss of estate- 15000/-
b. loss of consortium – 40,000/-
c. funeral expenses – 15,000/-

The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

The impact of the said judgement is that now the compensation amount will be increased and the future
prospect amounts will be considered.