5.1.1. While holding that the legal representatives of the
deceased are entitled to move an application for
compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1) of the
Act, it was observed,
“…The major married son who is also earning
and not fully dependent on the deceased,
would be still covered by the expression “legal
representative” of the deceased. This Court
in Manjuri Bera had expounded that liability
to pay compensation under the Act does not
cease because of absence of dependency of
the legal representative concerned…”
(Para 12)
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.18553 of 2023)
SAMEEM BEGUM AND OTHERS Vs K. VENKAT SWAMY AND ANOTHER.
Author: N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Citation: 2026 INSC 864.
Dated: AUGUST 14, 2026.
Leave granted
2. The present appeal is directed against judgment
and order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the High Court for
the State of Telangana at Hyderabad1 in M.A.C.M.A. No.
1363 of 2015, whereby, the High Court enhanced the motor
accident compensation to be paid to the appellants, from
Rs.8,44,000/- to Rs.11,00,672/- with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of order as awarded by the
1 Hereinafter, “High Court”.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 18553 of 2023 Page 2 of 17
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum II Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad2 till the date of
realisation.
3. The accident took place on 23.06.2012, the
deceased Shaik Janimiya was proceeding by walking at
Malkajgiri. At that time, a car bearing No. AP-29-AK-3717,
stated to be driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a
high speed, came and dashed into the pedestrian Shaik. He
fell down and succumbed to injuries while undergoing
treatment at Raghavendra Hospital. A complaint resulting
into case in Crime No. 284 of 2012 was registered against
the driver of the car. The claim petition was filed seeking
compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- for the death of the said
Shaik Janimiya. The appellants herein are the wife and
three children – the heirs and legal representatives of one
Shaik Janimiya who died in vehicular accident.
3.1. The deceased was aged 48 years working as a
Private Security Personnel at the relevant time. It was
claimed that he had been earning Rs. 9,000/- p.m. The
2 Hereinafter, “Tribunal”.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 18553 of 2023 Page 3 of 17
Tribunal awarded a total Rs. 8,44,000/- under various
heads with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till realisation, whereas the High Court
allowed the Appeal of the claimants in part increasing the
amount to Rs.11,00,672/-, to be paid with interest at 7.5%
per annum from the date of order passed by the Tribunal till
the date of realisation.
3.2. A comparative tabular chart showing the amounts
awarded by the Tribunal as well as the High Court under
different heads is as under,
Compensation
Heads
Amount awarded by
the Claims Tribunal
Amount awarded by the
High Court
Loss of
dependency
Income – 7,000/- p.m.
7,000 x 12 = 84,000/-
p.a.
84,000 – 1/4 (21000) =
63,000/-
63,000 x 13 =
Rs.8,19,000/-
Income – 7,000/- p.m.
7,000/- + 25% (1,750) =
8,750/-
8,750 – 1/4 =6,562/- p.m.
6,562 x 12 x 13 =
Rs.10,23,672/-
Funeral expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.77,000/-
(Conventional Heads)
Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
Loss of
consortium
Wife – Rs.5,000/-
Interest 7.5% p.a. 7.5% p.a.
TOTAL Rs. 8,44,000/- Rs. 11,00,672/-
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 18553 of 2023 Page 4 of 17
3.3. In the present appeal before this Court, the grounds
sought to be urged in the memorandum of appeal were, inter
alia, that the High Court committed an error in affirming the
monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 7,000/- p.m.,
although his salary certificate showed the income to be Rs.
9,000/- p.m. and that the amount under the head of
dependency ought to have been calculated on such basis.
The second plank was that the amount towards “parental
consortium” to the children of the deceased was not in
accordance with law.
3.4. It may be noted that the notice on 14.08.2023, by
this Court was issued for limited aspect of compensation
under the head “parental consortium”. However, in order to
adopt a comprehensive approach, it is dealt with in its both
spousal and parental consortium.
3.5. Notwithstanding the fact that this Court had issued
notice confined to the question of compensation to be paid
under “parental consortium”, the Court in its discretion
thought it fit to look into also with regard to submission on
behalf of the appellants about assessment of the monthly
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 18553 of 2023 Page 5 of 17
income of the deceased. What was claimed by the appellants
was that the deceased was a Chief Security Incharge, used
to earn around Rs. 9,000/- p.m. including allowances.
However, when the Tribunal relied on the testimony of the
Director of the deceased’s employer-PW3 who stated that the
salary of the deceased was Rs.7,000/- p.m., therefore,
Rs.84,000/- annually, the Tribunal committed no mistake.
4. Heard learned counsel Mr. Vamsikrishna Thota
with learned Advocate-on-Record Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy
for the appellants and Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Advocate
assisted by learned Advocate-on-Record Mr. Gopal Singh for
the respondents.
5. Proceeding to consider the question about
entitlement on part of the appellants- the wife and three
children, the amounts to be awarded under the head of
consortium, and the law developed in that regard, in
Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
and Another (2007) 10 SCC 643, this Court considered in the context of Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
entitlement to the amount of compensation on the count of
dependency. Compensation was claimed by the married
daughter not dependant on the deceased while the High
Court held that the claim was maintainable but dismissed
the same on the ground of lack of dependency. This Court
held that the devolution of the estate of the deceased which
is important and not the actual dependency.
5.1. In National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Birender and Others (2020) 11 SCC 356, this Court considered in the facts before it as to whether the major sons of the deceased who
are married and gainfully employed or earning, can claim
compensation. It was held that their claim would be
maintainable under Section 166(1)(c), however, quantum of
compensation would depend on extent of their dependency
on the deceased parent. The Court found on evidence that
though major sons were earning a livelihood were still
largely dependent on their deceased mother.
5.1.1. While holding that the legal representatives of the
deceased are entitled to move an application for
compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1) of the
Act, it was observed,
“…The major married son who is also earning
and not fully dependent on the deceased,
would be still covered by the expression “legal
representative” of the deceased. This Court
in Manjuri Bera had expounded that liability
to pay compensation under the Act does not
cease because of absence of dependency of
the legal representative concerned…”
(Para 12)
5.1.2. Stating that the expression “legal representative”
has not been defined in the Act, referring to paragraphs 9 to
12 of Manjuri Bera (supra), the Court observed that all
legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to
compensation and can file a claim petition.
5.2. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation,
Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another5,
where the question answered was whether a brother of the
deceased killed in a motor vehicle accident could be able to
claim compensation. The Court observed that the “legal
representative” ordinarily means a person who in law
represents the estate of a deceased person or a person on
5 (1987) 3 SCC 234
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 18553 of 2023 Page 8 of 17
whom the estate devolves on the death of an individual.
Every legal representative who suffers on account of the
death of a person because of a motor vehicle accident has a
remedy for realisation of compensation to be paid under
different heads.
5.3. In other words, when all such persons covered
within the expression “legal representative” are entitled to
maintain the compensation petition and seek compensation
for loss of life of the victim of a motor accident, by virtue of
that very principle and in view of the concept of consortium,
it is one of the heads of compensation which becomes
payable in motor accident claim cases.
5.4. The head of “consortium” is part of the conventional
sum to be awarded as part of the compensation. The
conventional amount has been provided in the Second
Schedule of the Act which was enacted in 1994 as found to
be defective as observed by this Court in U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation and Others vs. Trilok Chandra
and Others6 and in Puttamma and Others vs. K.L.
6 (1996) 4 SCC 362
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 18553 of 2023 Page 9 of 17
Narayana Reddy and Another7 observing that the Second
Schedule has become redundant, irrational and unworkable
due to changed scenario including the present cost of living
and the current rate of inflation as well as increased life
expectancy.
5.4.1. Enacted in 1994, the Second Schedule contained
the head general damages in case of death which provided a
fixed amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.
5,000/- towards loss of consortium, if beneficiary is the
spouse, Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/-
as a fixed amount towards actual medical expenses
supported by bills and vouchers, however, starting from the
decision in Trilok Chandra (supra), the suggested amount
in the Second Schedule has not been followed, nor there has
been amendment to the same.
5.4.2. In Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh8, this Court discussed
as to what is the concept of “consortium”,
“… In legal parlance, “consortium” is the right
of the spouse to the company, care, help,
comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection
7 (2013) 15 SCC 45
8 (2013) 9 SCC 54
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 18553 of 2023 Page 10 of 17
and sexual relations with his or her mate.
That non-pecuniary head of damages has not
been properly understood by our courts. The
loss of companionship, love, care and
protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get,
has to be compensated appropriately. The
concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of
consortium is one of the major heads of award
of compensation in other parts of the world
more particularly in the United States of
America, Australia, etc. English courts have
also recognised the right of a spouse to get
compensation even during the period of
temporary disablement…” (Para 17)
5.4.3. It was further stated,
“…By loss of consortium, the courts have
made an attempt to compensate the loss of
spouse's affection, comfort, solace,
companionship, society, assistance,
protection, care and sexual relations during
the future years. Unlike the compensation
awarded in other countries and other
jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are
otherwise adequately compensated for the
pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to
award a major amount under this head.
Hence, we are of the view that it would only
be just and reasonable that the courts award
at least rupees one lakh for loss of
consortium.” (Para 17)
5.5. This Court in National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others9 dealt with the
different heads under which compensation is to be awarded
to the victim who had died in a motor accident. “Loss of
9 (2017) 16 SCC 680
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 18553 of 2023 Page 11 of 17
consortium” is one of such heads. In Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram and Others10.
It was observed,
“…In legal parlance, “consortium” is a
compendious term which encompasses
“spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”,
and “filial consortium”. The right to
consortium would include the company, care,
help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection
of the deceased, which is a loss to his family.
With respect to a spouse, it would include
sexual relations with the deceased spouse11.”
(Para 21)
5.5.1. The ‘spousal consortium’ normally refers to the
rights pertaining to relationship of a husband and wife
which allow compensation to the surviving spouse for loss
of company, society, cooperation, affection and aid of the
other in the conjugal relations. The consortium amount
which is granted to the child is called ‘parental consortium’
to be paid on the premature death of a parent. It is in the
nature of compensation for parental aid, protection,
affection, society, discipline, guidance and training which
would have been available to the child had a parent been
alive. The concept of ‘filial consortium’ is the right of parents
10 (2018) 18 SCC 130
11 Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3
SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 18553 of 2023 Page 12 of 17
to be compensated when there is accidental death of a child,
for, parents would suffer shock and agony on loss of child
during their lifetime. The filial consortium reflects the inbuilt
love, affection and bond prevalent in the family for the
children.
5.6. This Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) adopted a new,
comprehensive and realistic approach and determined the
amounts payable under the conventional heads namely loss
of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. It is
relevant to notice the discussions in this regard in Pranay
Sethi (supra).
5.6.1. It was thus stated,
“…Therefore, we think it seemly to fix
reasonable sums. 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.”
(Para 52)
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 18553 of 2023 Page 13 of 17
5.7. The ‘consortium’ in different categories as above is
an important and indispensable head to award accident
claim compensation to make the compensation amount to
be just compensation. The amount is to be increased by 10%
at the end of every three years as held in Pranay Sethi
(supra).
6. In the present case, appellant No. 1 is the wife
whereas appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons and the daughter
of the deceased. All the children are aged between 18 and 21
years. They would be legitimately and legally entitled to
amount of compensation under the head of consortium,
spousal as well as parental. It was never in dispute that
appellant Nos. 2 to 4 were dependants of the deceased.
Appellant Nos. 2 to 4, therefore, ought to have been
considered as legal representatives and dependants of the
deceased to be entitled to parental consortium.
6.1. The Tribunal committed a manifest error in
granting only Rs. 5,000/- to the wife and did not award any
parental consortium to the children. On the other hand, the
High Court while enhancing the total compensation from
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 18553 of 2023 Page 14 of 17
Rs.8,44,000/- to Rs.11,00,672/- granted collectively
Rs.77,000/- under all the conventional heads. Thus, the
High Court also missed its legal duty to ensure that due
amount under the head of consortium is awarded in
accordance with law to the appellants to arrive at just and
legal compensation.
7. In light of a decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) and
Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra),
each of the claimants who are the wife and the children of
the deceased, would be entitled to a fixed amount Rs.
40,000/- each under the head of consortium, classified as
spousal consortium for appellant No. 1 and parental
consortium for appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Furthermore, as
observed in Pranay Sethi (supra), this amount has to be
enhanced at the rate of 10% at the interval of every three
years. Accordingly, after adding 10% each of the appellants
would be entitled to Rs. 48,400/- each under the head of
consortium.
7.1. As a result of the above discussion, after adding the
amount under the head of ‘consortium’ and maintaining the
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 18553 of 2023 Page 15 of 17
amount under the head ‘loss of dependency’ as awarded by
the High Court, finding it appropriate to increase the
amount under the heads of ‘Funeral expenses’ and ‘Loss of
Estate’ from Rs. 10,000/- each to Rs. 15,000/- each, the
total amount of compensation payable would stand
recalculated as under,
Compensation
Heads
Amounts to be awarded
Loss of dependency Income – 7,000/- p.m.
7,000/- + 25% (1,750) = 8,750/-
8,750 – 1/4 =6,562/- p.m.
6,562 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 10,23,672/-
Loss of consortium
(i) Spousal Consortium to Appellant No.
1 - wife.
Rs. 40,000/- + 10% increase for three
years = Rs. 48,400/-
(ii) Parental Consortium to Appellant
Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
Rs. 48,400/- x 3 = Rs. 1,45,200/-
Total loss of consortium –
48,400/- + 1,45,200/- = 1,93,600/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
TOTAL Rs. 12,47,272/-
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 18553 of 2023 Page 16 of 17
8. The High Court awarded total Rs. 11,00,672/-
under different heads. As per the above calculation, the total
amount of compensation now arrived at, by adding the
consortium figures would come to Rs. 12,47,272/-. The
additional amount of Rs. 1,46,600/- shall be payable with
7.5% interest from the date of filing of the petition till
realisation. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
with the Tribunal concerned, the above additional amount
with interest as provided, within six weeks.
9. Upon deposit of the amount by the Insurance
Company, the claimants would be entitled to be paid the
same in equal proportion. The Tribunal shall release the
amount in favour of each of the appellants after following
the process of verification etc., by directly crediting the
amount in their respective bank accounts.
10. The judgment and award of the High Court is
modified, and the compensation shall stand enhanced to the
above extent.
11. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Any Interlocutory Application, if pending, shall not
survive in view of the disposal of main appeal as above.
……………..………………………...J.
[NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]
………………………….J.
[N.V. ANJARIA]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 14, 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment