Ensuring that the Value of All Lives Is the Same

When road accidents occur, the law insists on knowing one’s income before assigning value to one’s life. This violates the promise of equality and dignity.

The Moral Dilemma- Justice vs. Arithmetic

• Human Loss vs Statistical Valuation: Road accident deaths, especially around New Year’s Eve, represent profound human loss that cannot be reduced to statistics.
• From Grief to Calculation: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal converts personal tragedy into numerical compensation through income-based formulas.
• Market Logic in Welfare Law: A welfare statute meant to provide relief has adopted market logic by valuing lives according to earning capacity.

The Legal Framework: How Courts Calculate Death

• Statutory Basis: Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers tribunals to award compensation that appears to be just.
• Judicial Standardisation: The Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi institutionalised the multiplier method to ensure uniformity.
• Components of Compensation: Compensation is calculated by multiplying annual income with an age-based multiplier and adding fixed conventional heads.
• Intended Objective: The framework seeks fairness through consistency in awards across cases.
  

Invisible Victims- The “Notional Income” Trap

• Income as the Primary Measure: Victims without formal income are assigned a notional income that is detached from their actual social contributions.
• Marginalisation of Unpaid Labour: Children, homemakers and informal workers receive symbolic compensation despite their essential roles.
• Limited Judicial Correction: Although Kirti v. Oriental Insurance recognised unpaid domestic work as labour, income remains central to valuation.
• Structural Exclusion: Those who care, nurture and build society are systematically undervalued in compensation calculations.
  

Constitutional Crisis- Article 14 & Article 21

• Equality Before Law (Article 14): Differential compensation based on income undermines the constitutional promise of equality before the law.
• Right to Life with Dignity (Article 21): Linking compensation to earnings makes dignity conditional rather than intrinsic.
• Moral Inconsistency: The law fails to equally recognise the dignity of a mason, a homemaker or a child who never earned wages.
  

Comparative Analysis- Road vs. Rail/Air

• Railways Act, 1989: The Railways Act provides a fixed compensation of ₹8 lakh for every deceased passenger.
• Carriage by Air Act, 1972: Air passengers’ deaths attract uniform compensation irrespective of income.
• Road Transport Anomaly: Road accident compensation uniquely depends on the victim’s earnings.

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.
  

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Way Forward

• Universal Dignity Floor: Every death or grievous injury should attract a fixed baseline compensation irrespective of income.
• Income-Linked Additions: Additional compensation can address actual financial loss without eroding equality.
• Dignity Damages: A separate category should recognise emotional loss, companionship and grief.
• Process Reforms: The MACAD model demonstrates how technology can ensure swift and transparent compensation.

Conclusion

The Goal of social law lies not in mirroring the market but to correct its distortions.

DOWNLOAD PDF