No separate compensation for loss of love and affection under MV Act – SC

Under MV Act separate compensation can not be granted under the head “loss of love and affection” – Supreme Court

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that under Motor Vehicle Act a separate compensation can not be granted under the head “loss of love and affection” but is confined to three conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5035 (2026) (02) abcaus.in SC

The Petitioner had challenged the Judgment and order passed by the Madras High Court partly allowing the appeal filed by the heirs of the deceased and modifying the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT).

In the instant case, the deceased aged 37 years who was riding a two-wheeler was hit by a tanker lorry (offending vehicle) being run in a rashly and negligent manner, resulting in his instant death.

The widow of the victim, their two minor children and the victim’s parents (the claimants) lodged a claim petition before the MACT, claiming compensation on account of loss of dependency and other conventional heads. The insurer of the offending vehicle contested the claim, inter alia, disputing negligence, the income of the victim, and the quantum of compensation claimed.

The MACT found the driver of the offending vehicle guilty and awarded compensation under three heads, i.e. the loss of income, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of love and affection to the parents and children.

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants preferred an appeal before the High Court which modified the award by enhancing the quantum of compensation payable by the insurer including under the head loss of love and affection.

However, the claimants were not satisfied by the quantum of modification and agitated the issue before Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that where the deceased was 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 and binding norm flowing from Article 141 of the Constitution.

On the issue of compensation under the head “loss of love and affection” the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Constitution Bench expressly disapproved this approach by holding that compensation should be confined to three conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses in order to preserve consistency and certainty in awards.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the head of “future prospects” itself is a creation of judicial interpretation, evolved to respond to socioeconomic realities and the legitimate expectations of dependents. If the law is capable of recognising anticipated economic progression as a valid loss, it is not too clear why emotional deprivation manifested in loss of love and affection must be viewed as an impermissible head, especially when Chapter XII of the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation meant to help people in distress arising out of road accidents.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the view expressed by the Constitution Bench was primarily one of consistency and avoidance of unguided discretion. However, it added that consistency, though desirable, cannot be elevated to a point where it eclipses the core objective of awarding “just compensation”. The law must remain responsive to lived human realities, especially in cases involving the sudden rupture of familial bonds.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that in a subsequent decision, the it had expanded the ambit of “consortium” to include parental and filial consortium, implicitly acknowledging the emotional and relational loss suffered by children and parents alike and this doctrinal expansion suggested that the distinction between “consortium” and “loss of love and affection” may be one of form rather than substance.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further noted that recently it had held that compensation in death cases is confined to three conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. At the same time, it was clarified that consortium is a compendious concept encompassing spousal, parental and filial consortium. It was further held that loss of love and affection is subsumed within loss of consortium and cannot be awarded as a separate head.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that in terms of the law declared by the Constitution Bench “loss of love and affection” can not be considered as a distinct head of compensation. As subsequently clarified, the non-pecuniary loss arising from deprivation of love and affection is comprehended within the broader head of “consortium”. Consequently, no separate award under the head of loss of love and affection is warranted.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Penalty u/s 270A deleted as assessee filed revised computation during scrutiny
• Penalty u/s 271B for unfilled column 40 in Tax Audit Report Form 3CD deleted by ITAT
• Merely ex-parte rectifying computation without amending assessment order not make it nullity- ITAT
• Once assessee discharges primary onus, it shifts to AO to bring evidence to contrary – ITAT
• Cost Inflation Index for FY/Tax Year 2026-27 notified by CBDT. See Up-to-date Table of CII