Free tool · no login needed

MACT compensation calculator

Death and injury claims under s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, worked out by the Supreme Court’s structured method. Each step names its authority and quotes the paragraph relied on, taken from the judgment text. Where the judgments leave a figure to the Tribunal, the calculator asks you for it and does not guess.

1. The deceased
Employment (for future prospects)
2. Dependants and personal expenses

Married: 1/3 for 2–3 dependants, 1/4 for 4–6, 1/5 above 6 (Sarla Verma para 14). A married deceased with fewer than two dependants is not covered by that paragraph; choose the Tribunal’s figure.

3. Multiplier

Enter the age.

The table (Sarla Verma para 21)
Age15–2021–2526–3031–3536–4041–4546–5051–5556–6061–6566–70
Multiplier1818171615141311975
4. Conventional heads

Pranay Sethi (31-10-2017) fixed loss of estate ₹15,000, consortium ₹40,000 and funeral expenses ₹15,000, to be “enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years”. The judgment does not say from which date the three years run or which date (accident, award) decides the figure. N. Jayasree (25-10-2021) counted from the Pranay Sethi judgment and gave one enhancement; Saroj (24-10-2024) gave two, compounded (₹18,150 and ₹48,400); but Malakappa (29-4-2025) still awarded the unenhanced ₹15,000 and ₹40,000. Choose what the Tribunal applies.

FromLoss of estateFuneralConsortium (each)
Pranay Sethi, 31-10-2017₹15,000₹15,000₹40,000
1 × 10%, from 31 October 2020₹16,500₹16,500₹44,000
2 × 10%, from 31 October 2023₹18,150₹18,150₹48,400
3 × 10%, from 31 October 2026₹19,965₹19,965₹53,240

The 31 October dates count three-year periods from the Pranay Sethi judgment. The third enhancement (from Saturday, 31 October 2026) is shown for completeness; no Supreme Court judgment in our database has applied it yet.

Satinder Kaur: loss of love and affection is comprehended in consortium and is not a separate head.

5. Other heads proved (optional)

Sarla Verma (Step 3): funeral expenses, cost of transporting the body and medical treatment before death, if incurred. Enter only what is proved.

6. Interest (optional)

Optional. Simple interest on the total, for the actual number of days between the two dates, on a 365-day year. The rate is yours to enter: the Supreme Court awards different rates case by case.

Result — death claim

Enter the age, income, number of dependants and number of consortium claimants.

Verify against the judgments. This applies the Supreme Court's standard method; the Tribunal decides income, age, dependants, loss of earning capacity and any departure the evidence justifies.
The paragraphs relied on (word for word from the judgment)
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121; 2009 ONLINE PLJR (SC) 3422 (15-04-2009) — para 10 of the PLJR copy
Generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation.
Source: PLJR database copy of the Supreme Court judgment
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (Constitution Bench), (2017) 16 SCC 680; 2017(4) PLJR (SC) 261 (31-10-2017) — para 61 (conclusions (iii)–(viii); para 59 in the SCC report)
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
Source: PLJR database copy of the Supreme Court judgment
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121; 2009 ONLINE PLJR (SC) 3422 (15-04-2009) — para 14 of the PLJR copy (paras 30–32 of the SCC report)
14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.
Source: PLJR database copy of the Supreme Court judgment
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121; 2009 ONLINE PLJR (SC) 3422 (15-04-2009) — para 15 of the PLJR copy (paras 30–32 of the SCC report)
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.
Source: PLJR database copy of the Supreme Court judgment
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121; 2009 ONLINE PLJR (SC) 3422 (15-04-2009) — para 21 of the PLJR copy (para 42 of the SCC report)
21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M- 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
Source: PLJR database copy of the Supreme Court judgment
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (Constitution Bench), (2017) 16 SCC 680; 2017(4) PLJR (SC) 261 (31-10-2017) — para 54
It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.
Source: PLJR database copy of the Supreme Court judgment
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130; 2018(4) PLJR (SC) 229 (18-09-2018) — para 8.7
8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'.
Source: PLJR database copy of the Supreme Court judgment
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130; 2018(4) PLJR (SC) 229 (18-09-2018) — para 8.7
In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count 5 . However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.
Source: PLJR database copy of the Supreme Court judgment
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur (three Judges), (2021) 11 SCC 780; 2020 ONLINE PLJR (SC) 2672 (30-06-2020) — judgment text (heads of compensation)
The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium. The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head. c)Funeral Expenses - Rs. 15,000 to be awarded The aforesaid conventional heads are to be revised every three years @10%.
Source: PLJR database copy of the Supreme Court judgment
N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2021 ONLINE PLJR (SC) 5070 (25-10-2021) — para 33
33. The judgment in Pranay Sethi2 was rendered in the year 2017. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for 10% enhancement. Thus, a sum of Rs.16,500/each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.
Source: PLJR database copy of the Supreme Court judgment
Saroj v. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co., [2024] 10 SCR 939; 2024 INSC 816; 2024 ONLINE PLJR (SC) 3440 (24-10-2024) — para 13 (table, 'Final Compensation Payable' column)
Loss of Estate Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/- (10% increase after 3 yrs + 3 yrs) Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/- (10% increase after 3 yrs + 3 yrs) Loss of Consortium Rs.6,00,000/- Rs.40,000 x 3 = Rs.1,20,000/- Rs.48,400 /- (10% increase after 3 yrs + 3 yrs) x 3 = Rs. 1,45,200/-
Source: PLJR database copy of the Supreme Court judgment
Sri Malakappa v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., [2025] 4 SCR 2058; 2025 INSC 590; 2025 ONLINE PLJR (SC) 920 (29-04-2025) — para 9
In addition to spousal loss of consortium children too are entitled at the rate of ₹40,000/-. In the above circumstances, we award the following compensation under the following heads: … 1 Loss of dependency 8000x12x140%x16x1/4 16,12,800/- 2 Loss of consortium 1,20,000/- 3 Medical expenses 21,966/- 4 Transport and funeral expenses 15,000/- 5 Loss of estate 15,000/- Total 17,84,766/-
Source: PLJR database copy of the Supreme Court judgment
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130; 2018(4) PLJR (SC) 229 (18-09-2018) — para 9
9. In light of the above mentioned discussion, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to the following amounts: Head Compensation awarded i. Income: Rs. 6,000 ii. Future Prospects: Rs. 2,400 (i.e. 40% of the income) iii. Deduction towards personal expenditure: Rs. 2,800 [i.e. 1/3rd of (Rs. 6,000 + Rs. 2,400) iv. Total Income: Rs. 5,600 [i.e. 2/3rd of (Rs. 6,000 + Rs. 2,400] v. Multiplier: 18 vi. Loss of future income: Rs. 12,09,600 (Rs.5,600 x 12 x 18) vii. Loss of love and affection: Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. 50,000 each) viii. Funeral expenses: Rs. 15,000 ix. Loss of estate: Rs. 15,000 x. Loss of Filial Consortium: Rs. 80,000 (Rs. 40,000 payable to each of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2)
Source: PLJR database copy of the Supreme Court judgment

A research aid, not legal advice. Figures come from the Supreme Court judgments quoted on this page, read from the PLJR database copies. The calculator does not decide income, age, dependency, contributory negligence, the split between claimants, or claims under s. 164 / the Second Schedule.