01Facts
The claimants sought compensation for the death of their mother, B.V. Kamala, in a road accident on 10 April 2021.
pp. 3–4The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹21,70,000, including ₹21,00,000 for loss of dependency, and directed the insurer to pay the award with 6% annual interest.
pp. 3–4The claimants appealed seeking enhancement.
p. 1, 5By the time of the appeal, one claimant had died, and the other claimant was her daughter.
p. 1, 502Issues
i.Whether compensation for the death of a homemaker should be enhanced by assessing loss of domestic care under Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram v. Surjeet despite the absence of proof of income and the deceased’s husband having predeceased her.
pp. 5–7ii.Whether the conventional heads of compensation should be increased by 10%.
p. 803Law Applied
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.
p. 2Under Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram v. Surjeet, 2026 INSC 634, a composite sum of ₹30,000 per month may be added as loss of domestic care when the case involves all three identified components: the homemaker’s contribution to household functioning, loss of maternal support for children, and loss of spousal support; the amount is subject to cumulative 10% revision every three years.
pp. 5–7The judgment describes this sum as a stand-in minimum monthly income where the homemaker’s contribution is not expressed in monetary terms.
pp. 5–7Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157, compensation under conventional heads is subject to periodic escalation; the Court applied a 10% increase in this case.
p. 8Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173
04Reasoning
The Court accepted that the claimants had not proved the deceased’s alleged tailoring income and therefore assessed her contribution as a homemaker.
pp. 6–7Because the deceased’s husband had died before the accident, the Court considered the spousal-support component inapplicable and assessed loss of domestic care at ₹20,000 per month rather than ₹30,000.
pp. 6–7It added 25% for future prospects, deducted one-third for personal expenses, and applied multiplier 14, arriving at ₹28,00,000 for loss of dependency/domestic care.
pp. 6–7The Court also found the accident occurred more than three years after Pranay Sethi and increased consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses by 10%.
p. 805Holding
The appeal was allowed in part.
pp. 8–9The Court enhanced total compensation from ₹21,70,000 to ₹28,77,000, entitling the claimant to an additional ₹7,07,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.
pp. 8–9The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks; 50% was to be released to the claimant and the balance kept in a fixed deposit for three years.
pp. 9–10Original Court PDF
CHAITRA M SvsNAGARAJU R
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
