Motor Vehicles – Accident – Claims – Compensation – Consortium – Appeals filed by Insurance Companies questioning the judgments of the High Courts arising out of the award by MACT with regard to the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants under two heads, i.e. ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘loss of love and affection’ – The appellants submitted that the amount granted under the head ‘loss of love and affection’ is wholly without jurisdiction and that National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. has only referred to spousal consortium and no other consortium, hence, there is no justification for allowing the parental consortium and filial consortium – Held: 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 a 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 – Further, the Three Judges Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. has categorically laid down that apart from spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable – It was further laid down that ‘loss of love and affection’ is comprehended in ‘loss of consortium’, hence, there is no justification to award compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ as a separate lead – Thus, the impugned judgments of the High Courts awarding consortium to each of the claimants in accordance with law which does not warrant any interference – However, the submission of the appellant that there is no justification for award of compensation under separate head ‘loss of love and affection’ is accepted. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and others, (2020) SCC Online 410, had reaffirmed the view of two-Judge Bench in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.. The ThreeJudge Bench in the above case approved the comprehensive interpretation given to the expression ‘consortium’ to include spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Three-Judge Bench however further laid down that ‘loss of love and affection’ is comprehended in ‘loss of consortium’, hence, there is no justification to award compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ as a separate head. [Paras 33 and 34][1044-H; 1047-C-D]
2. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has also not under conventional head included any compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ which have been now further reiterated by three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd.. It is thus now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. [Para 35] [1047-D-E]
3. The 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. [Para 38][1148-E-F]
4. The Three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. has categorically laid down that apart from spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable. This Court feel itself bound by the above judgment of Three Judge Bench. This Court, thus, cannot accept the submission of the appellant that the amount of consortium awarded to each of the claimants is not sustainable. [Para 39][1148-G]
5. This Court thus, found the impugned judgments of the High Court awarding consortium to each of the claimants in accordance with law which does not warrant any interference in this appeal. This Court, however, accept the submissions of the appellant that there is no justification for award of compensation under separate head ‘loss of love and affection’. The appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed insofar as the award of compensation under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. [Para 40][1148-H; 1149-A]
General Manager Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs) and Others (1994) 2 SCC 176; Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098; United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias
Satvinder Kaur and Others (2020) SCC Online SC 410 – relied on.
Magma General Insurance Company ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100; Sangita Arya and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others (2020) SCC Online SC 513; M.H.Uma
Maheshwari and Others v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2020) 6 SCC 400 – 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.