By IndiaHub 
The individual responsible for the accident had a third-party claims motor insurance policy for his vehicle, and based on this policy, the husband had filed for compensation.
To give you a brief background, at first he went to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) to figure out how much he could claim for his wife’s death due in the motorcycle accident. The MACT ruled that the husband should receive Rs 18 lakh for the loss of his wife and the welfare of their two children.
The insurance company rejected this and subsequently appealed to the High Court and eventually to the Supreme Court after losing the case in the High Court. The primary contention of the insurance company was against the award money since they alleged that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle, based on the eye-witness testimony and also the charge-sheet registered against the driver.
The High Court, however, found the accident to have been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bike, whose owner is indemnified by the insurance company. The Supreme Court upheld this finding of the High Court and said that there is no reason with them to differ from the said findings.
Check out the details below to find out why the husband won this case in the Supreme Court of India and received Rs 17 lakh from the motor insurance company.
How did this motor accident happen?
According to the order of the Supreme Court dated April 29, 2025, here’s the timeline of the events:
- February 22, 2015: A motorbike accident occurred and the wife who was a pillion rider sustained heavy injuries.
- February 24, 2015: The wife died due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
How did the MCAT calculate that this husband should get Rs 18 lakh
According to the order of the Supreme Court, here’s how MCAT arrived at the calculation:
- Before the Tribunal, the claimants (husband and their two children) asserted an income of Rs 15,000 for the deceased, while she was alive.
- The Tribunal, considering the unspecified work in which the deceased was employed, took the income at Rs 7,000 and reduced 1/3rd of the income determined for personal expenses; finding the husband to be not dependent on the deceased, in which event the dependent family consisted of the deceased and her two children.
- Fifty percent was added for future prospects and considering the age of the deceased, i.e. 35 years, a multiplier of 16 was applied, determining the total loss at Rs 13,44,000. On other heads also compensation was awarded totalling Rs 18,81,966.
Supreme Court reduced the compensation from Rs 18 lakh to Rs 17 lakh and used these legal reasonings
The insurance company (The IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited) filed an appeal against the order of the High Court in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reduced the total compensation to Rs 17 lakh from 18 lakh earlier.
Table showing the break-up of the Rs 17 lakh compensation which the husband gets:
| Serial number | Particulars | Amount (Rs) |
| 1. | Loss of dependency: 8000*12*140%*16*1/4 | Rs 16,12, 800 |
| 2. | Loss of consortium | Rs 1,20,000 |
| 3. | Medical expenses | Rs 21, 966 |
| 4. | Transport and funeral expenses | Rs 15,000 |
| 5. | Loss of estate | Rs 15,000 |
| 6. | Total | Rs 17,84,766 |
Legal Reasons cited by the Supreme Court:
- The husband of the deceased was not a dependent though he was a legal heir especially since he was an able bodied person of 40 years. As far as the income of the deceased wife though Rs 15,000 was claimed, the income determined by the Tribunal (MACT) was Rs 7,000. The High Court enhanced the income to Rs 8,000; though there was no appeal by the claimants.
- The deduction applicable for personal expenses was fixed at 1/3rd, considering the dependent family as one comprising the deceased and only two children. However, we are of the opinion that since there was no employment specified of the husband, it cannot be assumed that he would not have been at least partially dependent on the income of the deceased. Hence the family has to be comprised of 4 in which circumstances the deduction for personal expenses shall be at 1/4th.
- As far as the additions are concerned, the Tribunal accepted 50% as future prospects, which the High Court deleted. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, a Constitution Bench, insofar as a self-employed person below the age of 40 years, declared an addition for future prospects, which was limited to 40%.
- The appropriate multiplier to be applied was taken as 16 since the deceased was 35-years-old. The future prospects of 50% as awarded by the Tribunal was deleted which is proper, but this has to be granted at the rate of 40%. For loss of estate and funeral expenses, Rs 15,000 was granted while for loss of consortium a sum of Rs 40,000 was granted. In New India Assurance Company vs. Somwati case held that loss of consortium is not restricted to the wife alone but has to be awarded to the children and parents.
- Since there was no appeal filed from the order of the Tribunal determining the income at Rs 7,000, we find no reason to increase the income but however, the claimant would be entitled to 40% for future prospects and the deduction for personal expenses will be 1/4th. The medical expenses as accepted by the Tribunal based on bills has to be granted. In addition to spousal loss of consortium children too are entitled at the rate of Rs 40,000.
Supreme Court final judgement
The Supreme Court said:
- There is no scope for loss of love and affection, since already loss of consortium has been awarded. We are conscious of the fact that incremental increases have been made from the award of the Tribunal though the appellant had not challenged the Tribunal’s order.
- We are of the opinion that what has been enhanced is only the pro-rata amounts under the conventional heads, while the percentage adopted for future prospects and the deduction for personal expenses have been reduced.
- We do this exercise on the trite principle that what is to be awarded is ‘just compensation’ as has been held by the Constitution Bench. The award as modified by us also does not exceed that granted by the Tribunal. We dispose of the appeal with the above modifications. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
What might be some key legal takeaways from this judgement?
ET Wealth Online has asked various lawyers about what might be some key legal takeaways from this judgement. Here’s what they said:
Siddharth Joshi, Advocate, Delhi High Court, says: Here’s some key takeaways from this judgement:
- The finding of the Supreme Court that the husband of the deceased may also be considered as a dependent of the deceased wife is relevant factor to be considered by the legal heirs of the deceased while registering their claim and the insurance companies.
- In absence of any proof of employment/income, the Supreme Court today has considered including the husband as a dependent. Basis the same principle, the Court may include adult children as dependant who at the time are not employed and can presume that they are also dependent upon the deceased for their daily expenses.
- Reason as adopted by Court for including husband and adult children as dependant would have a direct impact on the final compensation to be paid by the insurance company
- The case will not set a precedent as the Supreme Court had clarified that they have amended the award basis the principle of “just compensation” and considering the position that the award modified did not exceed the award granted by the Tribunal.
- Having said above, in light of the fact that issue of including the husband as a dependent of deceased was specifically raised before the High Court and Supreme Court, the Judgment would be binding under Article 141 of Constitution. Thus, High Court and Subordinate Court will have to follow the principle laid down
Aakanksha Nehra, Partner, PSL Advocates & Solicitors, says: This judgment takes cognizance of the realistic nature of nuclear families in today’s times. In such a case, naturally for the purpose of calculating the permissible deductions, the total number of dependents would depend on the income earning capacity of each member of the family. However, proceeding on presumption creates an issue and in this regard, positive evidence should be on record to render such a finding. This is especially as this information is likely to be available with the family of the deceased only and not the insurance company. Hence, the onus should be on the claimants and if proved through evidence, the dependency of the husband ought to be considered while calculating the compensation for which the family of the deceased is entitled to.
Aviral Kapoor, Partner, Alagh & Kapoor Law Offices, says: In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that an able-bodied husband can be considered a dependent on his deceased wife’s income, and that children are also entitled to compensation for the loss of parental care and affection. This case sets significant new precedents aimed at providing ‘just compensation’ to families of accident victims. The decision overhauls how courts assess family loss, moving away from traditional assumptions. Here are the key takeaways:
- Husband’s Dependency Redefined: Challenging a long-held notion, the court stated that an unemployed or non-earning husband can be considered at least partially dependent on his wife’s income. This precedent shifts the focus to a family’s actual financial situation rather than outdated assumptions about gender roles.
- Children’s Right to Consortium: The ruling reinforces that children who lose a parent are entitled to compensation for “parental consortium”—the loss of parental guidance, affection, and care. This expands the concept of consortium beyond just the surviving spouse.
- ‘Just Compensation’ is Paramount: The Court emphasized its duty to award ‘just compensation’ above all else, correcting the award to align with established legal principles even though the claimants had not filed a cross-appeal for enhancement. This signals that courts can prioritize fair outcomes over procedural technicalities.
Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris, says: The Supreme Court held that an unemployed husband can be presumed to be partially dependent on the income of a working wife, thus breaking away from the conventional assumption that only wives or children are dependents. The ruling sets a progressive precedent in motor accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, by affirming that dependency is a matter of fact and not merely based on stereotypes or gender roles. It reinforces that dependency must be assessed based on the actual financial dynamics of a household, not outdated presumptions.
Tribunals and High Courts now have clear guidance to include unemployed spouses (irrespective of gender) in the dependent category, unless clearly proven otherwise. This widens the scope of who qualifies as a “dependent” and ensures fairer, more inclusive compensation.
The Court emphasized that compensation must be “just” and realistic, and that technical or procedural barriers (like absence of a claimant’s appeal) should not prevent the court from granting fair amounts under settled principles.