V. PATHMAVATHI & ORS. versus BHARTHI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANR.

Citation: [2026] 2 S.C.R. 436 · Decided: 06-02-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 436 : 2026 INSC 131
V. Pathmavathi & Ors. 
v. 
Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 833 of 2026)
06 February 2026
[Dipankar Datta* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue as regards the assessment of the income of the victim and 
the denial of any amount towards future prospects; and the grant 
of compensation under the head “loss of love and affection”.
Headnotes†
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Just Compensation – Assessment 
of income of victim and grant of future prospects – Fatal road 
accident – Victim aged about 37 years died instantly when 
his two-wheeler was hit by a tanker lorry insured with the 
respondent-insurance company, which was driven in a rash 
and negligent manner – Claimants (the widow of the victim, 
their two minor children and the victim’s parents) filed claim 
petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- stating that 
the victim, a driver was earning a regular monthly income of 
Rs.10,000/- – MACT held that the accident occurred due to the 
negligence of the offending vehicle; however, took the victim’s 
monthly income at Rs.6,000/- and awarded compensation of 
Rs.9,37,000/- with interest @7.5% – Claimants filed appeal 
before High Court which affirmed the finding on negligence; 
enhanced the compensation payable by the insurer to 
Rs.10,51,000/- with interest @7.5% by taking the monthly salary 
of the victim as Rs.7,000/- – Interference with:
Held: Determination of income must be founded on proof placed 
on record and cannot rest on conjecture or assumptions divorced 
from evidence – In view of the cogent and relevant evidence (the 
salary certificate issued by the employer of the victim (Exbt.P 14) 
which records that the victim was employed as a driver on a fixed 
monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-) which was not impeached by the 
* Author
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 
437
V. Pathmavathi & Ors. v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.
insurer, the monthly income of the victim has to be reckoned 
as Rs.10,000/- – Further, the High Court omitted to consider 
grant of any amount towards future prospects – Victim was 37 
years of age at the time of the accident and was earning a fixed 
monthly income – Once these foundational facts are established, 
the addition towards future prospects follows as a necessary 
consequence – High Court, in declining such addition, failed to 
apply the binding precedent of this Court, thereby committing 
a manifest error of law – Accordingly, the income of the victim 
being fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month, an addition of 40% towards 
future prospects is warranted which brings the monthly income 
to Rs.14,000/- – After deducting one-fourth towards personal and 
living expenses, the monthly contribution to the family would be 
Rs.10,500/- – Applying the multiplier of 15, as applicable to the 
age group of the victim, the total loss of dependency is computed 
at Rs.18,90,000/- (Rs.10,500 × 12 × 15) – Further, this Court is 
bound by the law declared by the Constitution Bench in Pranay 
Sethi, which does not countenance “loss of love and affection” 
as a distinct head of compensation – As subsequently clarified 
in Satinder Kaur, referring to both Pranay Sethi and Magma 
General Insurance, the non-pecuniary loss arising from deprivation 
of love and affection is comprehended within the broader head 
of “consortium” – Thus, no separate award under the head of 
loss of love and affection is warranted – Total compensation of 
Rs.20,80,000/- awarded with interest @9% p.a. to be paid from 
the date of filing the claim petition, till realization. [Paras 16, 17, 
19, 29, 32]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Just Compensation – Assessment 
of income of victim and grant of future prospects not matters 
of judicial discretion:
Held: Assessment of income and the grant of future prospects are 
not matters of judicial discretion in the abstract but are now firmly 
structured by authoritative precedents – Constitution Bench in 
Pranay Sethi clarified therein that the concept of future prospects 
is an integral component of “just compensation” and is not confined 
only to those in permanent government employment – Where the 
deceased is self-employed or on a fixed salary and below the age 
of 40 years, an addition of 40% of the established income towards 
future prospects is compulsory – This is not a matter of choice, 
438
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
but a binding norm flowing from Article 141 of the Constitution – In 
the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.