Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation under – Various heads – Person died in an accident when the motor cycle driven by him was hit by a car driven by respondent no.3 – MACT granted Rs.3,39,208/- with 7% interest as compensation to respondent nos.
1 and 2, father and sister of the deceased – High Court granted Rs.14,21,000/- with interest @ 9% – Challenged by appellantInsurance Company – Held: High Court’s finding regarding income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- p.m. is correct – High Court correctly considered respondent nos.1 and 2 to be dependents of the deceased, and made a deduction of 1/3 rd towards personal expenses of the deceased – Judgment of the High Court affirmed on this count – Amount awarded by the High Court towards loss of love and affection is also maintained – However, since deceased was 24 years old at the time of the accident, hence, in view of decision of Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case, future Prospects is awarded at 40% of the actual income of the deceased, instead of 50% as awarded by the High Court – Further, also in view of decision in Pranay Sethi case, compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses decreased to Rs.15,000/- – Though neither MACT nor High Court awarded any compensation to respondent nos.1 and 2 under “Loss of Estate”, in exercise of power u/Art.142 and in the interests of justice, Rs.15,000/- awarded under this head – Further, respondent nos.1 and 2 also awarded Rs. 40,000/- each for loss of “Filial Consortium” – Respondent nos.1 and 2 entitled to total compensation of Rs.14,25,600/- with interest @ 12% p.a.– Appellant and respondent no. 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation – Constitution of India – Art.142. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Beneficial Legislation – Purpose of – Discussed.
Words & Phrases – “Consortium” – Meaning of – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 With respect to the issue of Future Prospects, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi case 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. 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 selfemployed person. The High Court took his income to be Rs.6,000, which is marginally above the minimum wage of an unskilled worker at Rs.5,342. This finding is not being interfered with. 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. [Paras 8.1 and 8.3] [671-F-H; 672-B-C, G] National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 – followed.
1.2 The deceased was a bachelor, whose mother had predeceased him. The deceased was living in a village with his father who was about 65 years old, and respondent no.2- 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. The High Court correctly considered them to be dependents of the deceased, and made a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, affirmed on this count. [Para 8.2, 8.4] [673-B; 672-F]
1.3 As per the judgment in Pranay Sethi case the compensation of Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses is decreased to Rs.15,000. The amount awarded by the High Court towards loss of love and affection is, however, maintained. [Para 8.5] [673-C, F-G]
1.4 The MACT as well as the High Court did not award any compensation with respect to Loss of Consortium and Loss of Estate, which are the other conventional heads under which compensation is awarded in the event of death, as recognized in the Pranay Sethi case. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award “just compensation”, irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the Claimant. In exercise of power under Article 142, and in the interests of justice, it is deemed appropriate to award an amount of Rs. 15,000 towards Loss of Estate to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. [Para 8.6] [673-G-H; 674-A-B]
1.5 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. 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”. 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. 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. 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 case. In the present case, it is deemed appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium. [Paras 8.7] [674-C-G; 675-A-B]
1.6 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.14,25,600/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim petition till payment. Out of the amount awarded, Respondent No.1 is entitled to 60% while Respondent No.2 shall be granted 40% alongwith Interest. The Appellant-Insurance Company and Respondent No. 3 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded. Insurance Company will pay the full amount of compensation awarded to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and can recover 50% of the amount from Respondent No. 3. [Paras 9, 10] [675--E; 676-D-F]
Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54: [2013] 5 SCR 961; Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors 2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj); Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & 6 Ors. 2014
(3) UC 1687; Lakshman and Ors. v. Susheela Chand Choudhary & Ors (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570 (DB) –
referred to.
Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979) – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.