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

Supreme Court: What are the basis for grant of Future Prospects in Motor accident claim petition?

 8.1. With respect to the issue of Future Prospects, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, and was below 40 years of age, an addition of 40% of the established income should be granted towards Future Prospects.

Future Prospects are to be awarded on the basis of:

i. the nature of the deceased's employment; and

ii. the age of the deceased.

In the present case, it is claimed by the family of the deceased that he was engaged in making namkeen, and was earning a monthly income of about Rs. 15,000 per month. However, no evidence was brought on record to establish the same. The MACT as well as the High Court assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wage of an unskilled worker. The nature of his employment being taken as a self-employed person.

The deceased was 24 years old at the time of the accident. Hence, future Prospects ought to have been awarded at 40% of the actual income of the deceased, instead of 50% as awarded by the High Court.

Hence, the judgment of the High Court on this issue is modified to that extent.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018.

Decided On: 18.09.2018

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rohinton Fali Nariman and Indu Malhotra, JJ.

Author: Indu Malhotra, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1012/2018,(2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Father and Unmarried sister of deceased are entitled to get compensation under Motor Vehicles Act

 8.4. The Insurance Company has submitted that the father and the sister of the deceased could not be treated as dependents, and it is only a mother who can be dependent of her son. This contention deserves to be repelled. The deceased was a bachelor, whose mother had pre-deceased him. The deceased's father was about 65 years old, and an unmarried sister. The deceased was contributing a part of his meagre income to the family for their sustenance and survival. Hence, they would be entitled to compensation as his dependents.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018.

Decided On: 18.09.2018

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rohinton Fali Nariman and Indu Malhotra, JJ.

Author: Indu Malhotra, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1012/2018,(2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court Judgment on grant of compensation under the head "Loss of Consortium"

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'.

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.1

Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation."2

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, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized 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 therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.

The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at 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 children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018.

Decided On: 18.09.2018

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rohinton Fali Nariman and Indu Malhotra, JJ.

Author: Indu Malhotra, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1012/2018,(2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Sum for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years from the year 2017

 In Pranay Sethi   MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 16 SCC 680, this Court has awarded a total sum of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) under conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. It was held that the said sum should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. It was held thus:

59.8. 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.

33. The judgment in Pranay Sethi   MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 16 SCC 680 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. {Para 32}

34. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors.   MANU/SC/0500/2020 : AIR 2020 SC 3076, after considering Pranay Sethi   MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 16 SCC 680, has awarded spousal consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) and towards loss of parental consortium to each child at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). The compensation under these heads also needs to be increased by 10%. Thus, the spousal consortium is awarded at Rs. 44,000/- (Forty-four thousand only), and towards parental consortium at the rate of Rs. 44,000/- each (Total Rs. 88,000/-) is awarded to the two children.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6451 of 2021.

Decided On: 25.10.2021

N. Jayasree and Ors. Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Author: S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0966/2021 : AIR 2021 SC 5218,2021 SCC OnLine SC 967.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: A sum of Rs. 40,000/- is to be paid to each of the parents towards loss of consortium on the death of a child

This Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Ors. MANU/SC/1012/2018 : (2018) 18 SCC 130 has held that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is to be paid to each of the parents towards loss of consortium on the death of a child. Therefore, the Appellants are entitled to be awarded Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of consortium.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6291 of 2019 

Decided On: 14.08.2019

Joginder Singh and Ors. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Indu Malhotra and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.

Author: Indu Malhotra, J.

Citation: 2019 (4) TAC 3, MANU/SC/1096/2019.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Court can grant compensation for loss of consortium to parents and children also under motor accident claim petition

 Learned counsel for the appellant has

submitted that Pranay Sethi has only referred to

spousal consortium and no other consortium was

referred to in the judgment of Pranay Sethi, hence,

there is no justification for allowing the parental

consortium and filial consortium. The Constitution

Bench in Pranay Sethi has referred to amount of

Rs.40,000/- to the ‘loss of consortium’ but the

Constitution Bench had not addressed the issue as

to whether consortium of Rs.40,000/- is only

payable as spousal consortium. The judgment of

Pranay Sethi cannot be read to mean that it lays

down the proposition that the consortium is payable

only to the wife.

39. The Three-Judge Bench in United India

Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra) has categorically

laid down that apart from spousal consortium,

parental and filial consortium is payable. We feel

ourselves bound by the above judgment of Three

Judge Bench. We, thus, cannot accept the submission

of the learned counsel for the appellant that the

amount of consortium awarded to each of the

claimants is not sustainable.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3093 OF 2020

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs

SMT. SOMWATI 

Author: ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.

Dated:SEPTEMBER 07, 2020.

Print Page

Whether claimant are entitled to get compensation towards loss of consortium for death of bachelor?

However, since it is a case of death of a bachelor, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding a sum of ` 20,000/- under this head. The same is not permissible and is accordingly set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

M.F.A. No. 8139 of 2015 (MV)

Decided On: 15.12.2015

Appellants: H.P. Rajakumar and Ors. 
Vs.
Respondent: Madaraje Ars and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:N.K. Patil and P.D. Waingankar, JJ.

Citation;2016(3) ALLMR(Journal) 26

Print Page

Whether wife who was not residing with deceased husband is entitled to get compensation for loss of consortium?

 The evidence on record shows that the second wife has spent Rs. 4,90,000/- towards medical expenses at Sagar Apollo Hospital and therefore, she is exclusively entitled to the said amount. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first wife, even though she was not living with her husband for more than 25 years. As such it is not justified. It is the second wife who would be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium. The first wife would be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, which has not been awarded at all.

Equivalent Citation: 2015(1) AKR 168, 2015(1)KCCR353,AIR 2015(NOC)687 KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)

MFA Nos. 24051 and 24165/2012 and MFA No. 24186/2012 (MV)

Decided On: 25.02.2014

Appellants: Lalita
Vs.
Respondent: M.R. Sunilkumar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Print Page

Whether one spouse can get compensation for loss of consortium in case of temporary disablement of other spouse?

We may therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-, In legal parlance, 'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection 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, 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 recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. 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.” (Emphasis laid by this Court)

Supreme Court of India

Balram Prasad vs Kunal Saha & Ors on 24 October, 2013

Bench: Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, V. Gopala Gowda

Read whole judgment here; click here

Print Page