• The Arithmetic Approach: Current legal frameworks, such as those used by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, typically calculate a life's value by multiplying a victim's annual income by an age-based factor. This "market-based" method values lives differently based on economic productivity, often resulting in higher compensation for professionals (e.g., doctors) than for homemakers or daily wage workers.
• The Justice Approach: From a moral and constitutional perspective, every life possesses inherent, equal dignity regardless of economic status. Critics argue that converting a person’s existence into a statistical "arithmetic" exercise violates this principle of equality.

Legal Framework for Death Compensation in Accidents

1. Governing Law

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166, 168, and 169 provide the basis for claims, adjudication, and award of compensation.
• Claims are filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), with appeals possible up to the High Court and Supreme Court.

2. Key Judicial Principles

• Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009): Established a standard method for calculating compensation, especially the use of the “multiplier” based on age.
• Pranay Sethi v. National Insurance (2017): Clarified inclusion of future prospects (expected salary growth) and fixed amounts for non-economic damages.
• Magma General Insurance v. Nanu Ram (2018): Recognized consortium (loss of companionship) for family members.
• Recent Supreme Court Rulings (2025): Reaffirmed that allowances forming part of salary (if used for family support) must be included in income computation

Invisible Victims: The “Notional Income” Trap

What is “Notional Income”?

• A hypothetical income figure assigned when the deceased had no proof of earnings.
• Commonly applied to: Homemakers,Children and students, Elderly dependents,Informal or undocumented workers

The Trap of Invisible Victims

1. Undervaluation of Lives:
   • A homemaker’s unpaid labor (childcare, household management) is reduced to a token figure.
   • Children’s future potential is ignored, treating them as “non-earners.”
2. Justice vs. Arithmetic:
   • Justice demands equal value for all lives.
   • Arithmetic reduces compensation to numbers, leaving invisible victims with disproportionately low awards.
3. Social Bias:
   • Formal employment is privileged over informal or unpaid work.
   • Vulnerable groups (women, children, migrants) are systematically undervalued.
4. Impact on Families:
   • Survivors receive inadequate compensation, perpetuating economic hardship.
   • Emotional and social loss is not fully recognized.

Judicial Attempts to Correct the Trap

• Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (2017): Allowed fixed sums for non-economic damages (consortium, funeral expenses).
• Recent rulings: Courts have begun to raise notional income figures to reflect inflation and social realities.
• Recognition of Homemakers: Some judgments acknowledge the economic value of unpaid domestic work, though inconsistently.

Article 14 – Equality Before Law

1. Principle: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws for all persons.
2. Implication in Accidents: Every victim, regardless of income, age, or social status, should be treated equally in rescue, compensation, and justice.
3. Crisis Point: When courts assign different values to lives (e.g., higher compensation for salaried workers vs. “notional income” for homemakers/children), Article 14’s equality principle is undermined.

Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

1. Principle: Protects the right to life, dignity, and personal liberty.
2. Implication in Accidents: The state must ensure safety, rescue, and fair compensation for loss of life.
3. Crisis Point: When compensation formulas reduce life to arithmetic (multipliers, notional income), the dignity of life under Article 21 is compromised.

Philosophical Angle

• Illusion of Unlimited Liability: Although liability under Section 147 is unlimited in theory, it is constrained in practice by income-based assessment.
• Lon Fuller’s Inner Morality of Law: A system equating life with livelihood fails the test of coherence and fairness.
• Ronald Dworkin’s Law as Integrity: Differential valuation of lives violates the principle of equal concern and respect.
• Martha Nussbaum’s Dignity as Capability: Dignity lies in human capability and flourishing, not merely in income.

Way Forward

• Legal Reform: Update notional income regularly, recognize unpaid work, and factor in future potential.
• Judicial Innovation: Courts should interpret Articles 14 and 21 harmoniously, ensuring both equality and dignity.
• Policy Harmonization: Create a unified compensation framework across road, rail, and air accidents to ensure consistency.
• Ethical Balance: Blend utilitarian efficiency with deontological respect for rights, ensuring no life is treated as “less valuable.”
• Public Awareness: Promote recognition of invisible victims to strengthen social justice and institutional trust.

Conclusion

Download Pdf