Supreme Court: Compensation for loss of consortium of Rs. 40,000/- can not be granted to each of the dependents separately but in toto

 The notice in terms of the order dated 13.10.2020 was confined only to two aspects i.e. the sum for loss of love and affection being Rs. 50,000/- and for loss of consortium for Rs. 40,000/- could not have been granted to each of the three dependents separately but in toto and that would be the amount quantified. This was in terms of the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. -   MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 16 SCC 680. {Para 3}

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents did endeavour to persuade us that it should be per the legal heir by relying on Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Ors.   MANU/SC/1012/2018.

6. We are, however, of the view that the total amount has to be assigned under a particular heading and that will go depending on the number of legal heirs present.

7. The amounts fixed in terms of Pranay Sethi's case (supra) are Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- respectively under the two heads and that should be the total amount payable.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 2410-2412/2023

Decided On: 27.03.2023.

Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh Rawat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Aravind Kumar, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/1106/2023.

Print Page

Whether motor accident claim tribunal can grant amount under the head of consortium if said person has died after filing of claim petition?

By applying the dictum as laid down in Smt. Somwati's case (supra) both the parents of the deceased Balbir Singh are held entitled to a filial consortium of Rs. 40,000/- each. The submission advanced by counsel for the insurance company that since parents of the deceased have already expired as such the amount under the head of loss of consortium cannot be awarded is found to be misconceived and not well founded. Upon the death of Balbir Singh in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 30.10.2000, not only the widow and minor children but even the parents had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh. Claim of the parents for grant of filial consortium as such had crystallised at the time of the accident itself i.e. on 30.10.2000 when they had lost their son Balbir Singh in the accident. Such claim which already stood crystallised on the date of the accident cannot be negated by the subsequent death of the parents themselves. {Para 20}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-3756-2002(O&M)

Decided On: 18.01.2021

Paramjit Kaur and Ors. Vs. Gurdev Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

Citation: MANU/PH/0025/2021.

Print Page

Leading Supreme court judgment on grant of compensation on account of loss of consortium in Motor accident

13. The Appellant has claimed compensation on account of love and affection as well on account of spousal consortium for wife and for the parental consortium for the children in the calculation given to this Court but in view of three Judge Bench judgment reported as United India Insurance Co. Limited v. Satinder Kaur and Ors. MANU/SC/0500/2020 : (2021) 11 SCC 780, the compensation under the head on account of loss of love and affection is not permissible but compensation on account of spousal consortium for wife and for the parental consortium for children is admissible. This Court held as under:

30. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram [Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, MANU/SC/1012/2018 : (2018) 18 SCC 130 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 146 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri.) 153] this Court interpreted "consortium" to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as 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 spouse.

31. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love and affection, and their role in the family unit.

32. Modern jurisdictions world over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions permit parents to be awarded compensation under the loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love and affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.

33. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims, or their families, in cases of genuine claims. 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 the children who lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents. The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri.) 205].

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5220 of 2022.

Decided On: 10.08.2022

Janabai and Ors. Vs. I.C.I.C.I. Lambord Insurance Company Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ.

Author: Hemant Gupta, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0985/2022.

Print Page

When consortium of companies cannot initiate international commercial arbitration?

Since disputes arose between the parties to the agreement,
various interim claims had been made by the Consortium of M/s
Larsen and Toubro, an Indian company, together with Scomi
Engineering Bhd, a Company incorporated in Malaysia, for
which the Consortium has filed this petition under Section 11 of
the Act to this Court, since according to them, one of the parties
to the Arbitration agreement, being a body corporate,
incorporated in Malaysia, would be a body corporate, which is
incorporated in a country other than India, which would attract
Section 2(1)(f)(ii) of the Act.
 On the other hand, Mr. Shyam Diwan, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of MMRDA, the respondent, has
relied upon both the contract dated 09.01.2009 as well as the
actual Consortium Agreement dated 04.06.2008 between the
Indian company and the Malaysian company, which, when read
together, would show that they are really an un-incorporated
association and would, therefore, fall within Section 2(1)(f)(iii) as
being an association or a body of individuals, provided the
central management and control is exercised in any country
other than India. He has also gone on to rely heavily upon the

fact that in the Consortium, the lead partner is the Indian
company, and the Consortium’s office is at Wadala in Mumbai
making it clear, therefore, that sub-Clause (iii) of Section 2(1)(f)
of the Act would not apply as it is clear that the central
management and control, that is envisaged by the said sub-
Clause, would not be exercised in a country outside India but in
India itself.
This being the case, coupled with the fact, as correctly
argued by Shri Diwan, that the Indian company is the lead
partner, and that the Supervisory Board constituted under the
Consortium Agreement makes it clear that the lead partner
really has the determining voice in that it appoints the Chairman
of the said Board (undoubtedly, with the consent of other
members); and the fact that the Consortium’s office is in
Wadala, Mumbai as also that the lead member shall lead the
arbitration proceedings, would all point to the fact that the

central management and control of this Consortium appears to
be exercised in India and not in any foreign nation.
14) This being the case, we dismiss the petition filed under
Section 11 of the Act, as there is no “international commercial
arbitration” as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act for the
petitioner to come to this Court. 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION (C) No. 28 OF 2017

M/S LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED SCOMI
ENGINEERING BHD 
Vs
MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 

Dated:October 3, 2018.

Print Page