Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Kaur Etc vs Gurthakur Singh And Ors on 10 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M)
Reserved on:25.02.2025
Pronounced on:10.03.2025
Balwinder Kaur and others
.... Appellants
Versus
Gurthakur Singh and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA
****
Present: Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. S. S. Virk, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate;
Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. Didar Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
****
DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
06.02.2028 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 read with Section
140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Faidkot (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) on the ground that Balwinder Kaur
(appellant No.1) widow of deceased Harjinder Singh has not been held entitled to
get any share in the compensation being against the law and also for enhancement
of compensation.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
Harjinder Singh (since deceased) was going on 14.11.2006 on his
motorcycle bearing No.PB-03-K-4228 from village Jhakharwala towards
1 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 2
Bathinda and Swaran Singh was the pillion rider. When they reached near the bus
stand of village Amargarh, a Maruti car bearing No. DL-8CD-1684 being driven
by its driver Gurthakur Singh (respondent No.1) in a rash and negligent manner
hit the motorcycle which was driven by Harjinder Singh (since deceased), as a
result of which, Harjinder Singh (since deceased) suffered multiple injuries and
ultimately on 17.11.2006 Harjinder Singh succumbed to his injuries. The matter
was reported to the police and FIR No.145 dated 15.11.2006, under Sections
279/337/338/427 IPC was registered at Police Station Nahian Wala, District
Bathinda. At the time of alleged accident, the offending vehicle was driven by
respondent No.1 and owned by respondent No.2. At the time of death of
Harjinder Singh (since deceased), he was of the age of 28 years and was serving
in Indian Army as a Sepoy. As per Harjinder Singh (since deceased), he was
drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. The appellants (claimants before
learned Tribunal) filed the claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of
Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of Harjinder Singh (since deceased) and the
same was decided by learned Tribunal vide Award dated 06.02.2008. As per the
Award passed by the learned Tribunal, the compensation was assessed to the tune
of Rs.2,68,000/- taking into consideration the salary of the deceased Harjinder
Singh as Rs.8462/- per month. Out of the total amount of compensation of
Rs.2,68,000/-, appellant No.2 Jasbir Kaur, mother of the deceased Harjinder
Singh (since deceased) was held entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,68,000/- and
the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid to appellant No.3
Sukhmander Singh, father of deceased Harjinder Singh. As per the Award passed
by learned Tribunal, appellant No.1 Balwinder Kaur widow of deceased Harjinder
Singh was not held entitled for compensation on account of her remarriage with
2 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 3
the younger brother of her first husband after the death of Harjinder Singh.
However, she was held entitled to reimbursement of medical bills/cash memos
amounting to Rs.24,580/-. The appellant No.1 was also found entitled to interest
@ 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization. The amount of compensation was to be paid by respondent No.3-
Oriental Insurance Company.
3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and
contested the claim petition and denied the factum of accident/compensation.
4. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 admitted the factum of
the accident however learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company
denied the factum of accident and contended that at the time of accident, the
driver of the car was not holding a valid driving licence therefore the insurance
company was not liable to compensate the appellants-claimants.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following
issues:-
1) Whether on 14.11.2006 near village Amargarh on the raod leading
from Goniana Bye pass to Bathinda, respondent No.1 Gurthakur
Singh while driving his Maruti Car No. DL-8CD-1684 in a rash and
negligent manner, hit the motorcycle bearing temporary No. PB-03-
K-4228 and caused the accident, which resulted the death of
Harjinder Singh son of Sukhmander Singh? OPP
2) Whether the claimants are the legal heirs and were dependent upon
deceased Harjinder Singh? OPP
3) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation if so, to what
amount and against whom? OPP
4) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle, car No. DL-8CD-
1684 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time
of alleged accident? OPP
5) Relief.”
3 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 4
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal has
erred in giving the finding that appellant No.1 on account of her remarriage after
the death of her first husband was not entitled for grant of compensation.
He submits that appellant No.1, who had remarried, is also entitled
for grant of compensation as remarriage of appellant No.1 would not dis-entitle
her for grant of compensation. In regard to the above said contention raised by
learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, similar issue came up for
consideration before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in FAO-2917 of 2014,
titled Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rajni and others, decided
on 17.11.2023. In the abovesaid judgment, co-ordinate Bench has held that a
widow on account of her remarriage is entitled for grant of compensation.
Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:-
“In view of the submissions so made, it is to be noticed that
simply because Rajni, widow of the deceased, got re-married, it
could not be a reason to deprive of her rightly claim. Re-marriage of
widow has nothing to do with her right, which accrued to her to seek
compensation, on account of loss, which has accrued to her, as a
result of unnatural demise of her husband. Her decision to re-marry is
entirely her personal choice and nobody can have say in the same. In
this regard, it is essential to make reference to decision rendered in
Dincy’s case (supra), wherein, it was concluded that right of the
widow to claim compensation crystallized upon her husband’s life,
being tragically snatched away in the motor accident. Therefore,
simply because she has now re-married, her claim does not abate or
lessen. Considering the same, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had
removed the disparity between the apportionment of the
compensation, so worked upon, granted to the widow as well as the
parents of the deceased and held that each of the claimant shall be
entitled to receive equal share in the awarded amount. The aforesaid
decision was further challenged by way of filing of Special Leave4 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 5
Petition titled as ‘Bridget Irene and another vs. Dincy Devassy and
another‘, in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, it was observed
by Hon’ble Apex Court that in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, they were not inclined to interfere in this matter and the
Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
In The Iffco Tokio’s case (supra), though, much resistance
was shown to the compensation to be granted to the widow of the
deceased, on account of her re-marriage, but however, said
contention was discarded, while observing that after the death of her
husband, re-marriage in itself cannot be a taboo to get a
compensation. Solely, on account of her being wife of the deceased,
is sufficient ground for her entitlement to the compensation.
In Gianis W/o. Late Anil Abraham vs. Lazar Manjila S/o.
Joy Manjila, 2020(3) ILR (Kerala) 457, while considering the
question of entitlement of the widow of the deceased, in pursuance of
her re-marriage, it was observed, as herein given:-
“22. It is to be noted that the 1st appellant would not have
thought of a remarriage, but for the untimely death of her
husband. It was not a remarriage on account of divorce. The
Court has to consider the psychological hurdles that the
MACA No. 1936/2008 widow will face on account of
remarriage. The society is changing. The age old concept of a
remarried widow cutting off all relations with the family of
her ex-husband, is becoming a story of the past. Fact remains
that the 1st respondent was dependent on the deceased and
would have remained so, but for the demise of her husband
consequent to the accident. The death has indeed resulted in
loss of dependency. After the death of husband, a widow may
go for employment and become self-dependent or may opt for
remarriage. Either way, the loss of dependency consequent to
the death of the husband does not cease merely because she
has remarried or became self-reliant. The word dependency
and legal representative, therefore, should receive a pragmatic5 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 6
interpretation.While computing compensation for dependency
of a widow on the death of her husband under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, her remarriage shall not be a
decisive factor.”
Thus, in the light of the aforesaid case law, even though, widow
Rajni had re-married, after a period of three years, but still, she is
entitled to compensation. Though, the fact of her re-marriage, may
as such, taken into consideration for working upon the extent of
compensation, but however, the compensation, in toto, as such,
cannot be denied.”
In view of the abovesaid judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court, it is held that appellant No.1 would also be entitled for grant of
compensation.
7. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants further contends
that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side, Harjinder
Singh (since deceased) was only 28 years of age at the time of alleged accident
and as such learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 8 instead of
17. It is also the case of the appellants that future prospects has not been taken
into consideration towards income while determining the compensation. He
further contends that no amount was awarded for loss of consortium; loss of estate
and funeral expenses. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and
compensation should be enhanced as per law.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2
vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of
compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. He
thus prays for dismissal of the appeal. Learned counsel for respondent No.3
contends that the consortium amount should not exceed more than Rs.40,000/- in
toto. In other words, contention of learned counsel for respondent No.3 is that the
6 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 7
appellants-claimants each cannot be granted Rs.40,000/- separately, in this regard
reliance has been made on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case titled as Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Bhagat Singh
Rawat and others, Civil Appeal Nos.2410/2023 [@ SLP (C) Nos.11669-
11671/2020], decided on 27.03.2023.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
10. In regard to while determining the addition to the income towards
“future prospects” is concerned, the above said issue has duly been considered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the relevant paras of the same are as
under:-
“59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our
conclusion: –
59.1 The Two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been
well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was
taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla
Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a
coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary
view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
59.2 As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma
Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the
decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should
be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years.
In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the
addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual
7 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 8
salary less tax.
59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an additional of 40% of the established income should be
the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.
An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of
40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the
age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary
method of computation. The established income means the
income minus the tax component.
59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for
personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall
be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we
have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying
the multiplier.
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.”
Principle regarding consortium:-
11. So far as the issue of “consortium is concerned, it would be
appropriate to refer various pronouncements where Hon’ble Supreme Court has
considered the issue of “consortium”.
12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 (Five Judge
Constitution Bench), has held as under:
52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it
difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has
8 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 9
granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.
1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards
loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head
relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist.
Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi it does not seem to
follow the same……….
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………
13. In Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu
Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as under:
21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
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.
21.1.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
9 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 10
other in every conjugal relation.”
21.2. 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.”
21.3. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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. A
few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count.
However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on
which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial
10 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 11
consortium.
24. 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. In
the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and
the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000 each for loss
of Filial Consortium.
14. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance
Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur Alias Satwinder Kaur and Others,
(2021) 11 SCC 780 (Three Judge Bench) has held as under:
(e) Three conventional heads
28. In Pranay Sethi, the Constitution Bench held that in death
cases, compensation would be awarded only under three
conventional heads viz.loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses. The Court held that the conventional and
traditional heads, cannot be determined on percentage basis,
because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike
determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified,
which has to be based on a reasonable foundation. It was observed
that factors such as price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of
rates, are aspects which have to be taken into consideration. The
Court held 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 Court
was of the view that the amounts to be awarded under these
conventional heads should be enhanced by 10% every three years,
which will bring consistency in respect of these heads.
a) Loss of Estate – Rs. 15,000 to be awarded
b) Loss of Consortium
29. Loss of Consortium, in legal parlance, was historically given a
narrow meaning to be awarded only to the spouse i.e. the right of
the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society,
11 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 12
solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. 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 for awarding compensation in various jurisdictions
such as the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts
have recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even
during the period of temporary disablement.
30. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, 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 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 permit parents to be awarded compensation under 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,
12 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 13
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.
34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity
with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and
affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding
compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and
affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, has
recognized only three conventional heads under which
compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses. In Magma General (supra),
this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to
include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as
filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in
loss of consortium.
35. The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award
compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate
conventional head. There is no justification to award
compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head.
15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company
Limited vs. Somwati and Others, 2020 9 SCC 644, has held as under:
“26. This court also awarded an amount under the head “loss
of consortium” to the wife.
27. We need to notice the Constitution Bench judgment in
Pranay Sethi which case notices the earlier judgments of13 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 14
this Court where compensation was awarded towards loss of
consortium. In paragraph 46, the following was laid down:
(SCC p. 709)
“46. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains
to grant of “loss of estate”, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses. In Santosh Devi, the two-Judge Bench
followed the traditional method and granted Rs.5000/-
for transportation of the body, Rs.10,000/- as funeral
expenses and Rs.10,000/- as regards the loss of
consortium. In Sarla Verma, the Court granted
Rs.5000/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs.5000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of
consortium. In Rajesh, the Court granted Rs.1,00,000/-
towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards
funeral expenses. It also granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards
loss of care and guidance for minor children. The Court
enhanced the same on the principle that a formula framed
to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-
economic issue has to be contrasted from a legal
principle and ought to be periodically revisited as has
been held in Santosh Devi. On the principle of revisit, it
fixed different amount on conventional heads. What
weighed with the Court is factum of inflation and the
price index. It has also been moved by the concept of
loss of consortium. We are inclined to think so, for what
it states in that regard. We quote: (Rajesh case):-
“17…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, love, care and protection, etc., the
spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated14 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 15
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.”
28. In para 52, the Constitution Bench opined that
reasonable figures on conventional head namely “loss of
estate”, “loss of consortium” and “funeral expenses‟ should
be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. In
para 52, following has been laid down: (Pranay Sethi case,
SCC pp. 710-11)
“52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we
find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in
Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral
expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for
minor children. The head relating to loss of care and
minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to
Santosh Devi it does not seem to follow the same. The
conventional and traditional heads, needless to say,
cannot be determined on percentage basis because that
would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike
determination of income, the said heads have to be
quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable
foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that
price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in
many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot
15 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 16
remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb
rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme
difficulty in determination of the same and unless the
thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation
lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of
which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are
likely to be unguided. 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.”
29. In para 59.8, the Court further held that the amount of
conventional head should be enhanced @10% every three
year. In para 59.8,following was held: (Pranay Sethi case,
SCC p. 714, para 59)
“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.”
30. The next judgment which needs to be noted is Magma
General Insurance Co.Ltd. versus Nanu Ram, the concept
of consortium was explained in para 21,22 and 23 which are
as follows: (SCC pp. 136-37)
“21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi 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
16 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 17
relations with the deceased spouse.
21.1 “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, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation.”
21.2. 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.”
21.3. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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. A
few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count.
However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles
on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial
Consortium.”
31. A two-Judge Bench in Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. awarded the amount of Rs.40,000/- to father and sister of the
deceased. Para 24 is as follows: (SCC p. 137)
“24. 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. In the present case, we deem it appropriate to
award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of
17 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 18
Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.”
32. A three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Satinder Kaur, had reaffirmed the view of two-Judge Bench
in Magma General insurance Co. Ltd.. The Three-Judge Bench
from para 53 to 65, dealt with three conventional heads. The entire
discussion on three conventional heads of three-Judge Bench is as
follows:
“53. In Pranay Sethi, the Constitution Bench held that in
death cases, compensation would be awarded only under three
conventional heads viz. “loss of estate”, “loss of consortium”
and funeral expenses.
54. The Court held that the conventional and traditional
heads, cannot be determined on percentage basis, because that
would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of
income, the said heads have to be quantified, which has to be
based on a reasonable foundation. It was observed that factors
such as price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates,
are aspects which have to be taken into consideration. The
Court held 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 Court was of the view that the
amounts to be awarded under these conventional heads should
be enhanced by 10% every three years, which will bring
consistency in respect of these heads.
a) Loss of Estate – Rs. 15,000 to be awarded
b) Loss of Consortium
55. Loss of Consortium, in legal parlance, was historically
given a narrow meaning to be awarded only to the spouse i.e.
the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort,
guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with
his or her mate. 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 for
awarding compensation in various jurisdictions such as the
United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have
recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even
during the period of temporary disablement.
56. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram,
18 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 19
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.
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. 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 permit parents to be awarded compensation under 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.
60. 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.
61. Parental Consortium is awarded to the children who lose the
care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents.
62. The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per
the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi.
63. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity
19 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 20
with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and
affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding
compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and
affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, has
recognized only three conventional heads under which
compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses.
64. In Magma General, this Court gave a comprehensive
interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium,
parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and
affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
65. The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award
compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate
conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation
towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head……………………
33. The Three-Judge 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.
34. 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 Co. Ltd. It is thus
now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be
awarded under the head “loss of love and affection”.
35.The word “consortium” has been defined in Black’s law
Dictionary, 10th edition. The Black’s law dictionary also
simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium
20 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 21
and spousal consortium in the following manner:
“Consortium 1. The benefits that one person, esp. A
spouse, is entitled to receive from another, including
companionship, cooperation, affection, aid, financial
support, and (between spouses) sexual relations a claim
for loss of consortium.
Filial consortium A child’s society, affection, and
companionship given to a parent.
Parental consortium A parent’s society, affection and
companionship given to a child.
Spousal consortium A spouse’s society, affection and
companionship given to the other spouse.”
36. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. as well as United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., the Three-Judge Bench laid down that
the consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also
includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. In para
87 of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., “consortium” to all the three
claimants was thus awarded. Para 87 is quoted below:-
“87. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the
deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three children
as his dependents. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay
Sethi and Magma General, the following amounts are
awarded under the conventional heads:-
i) Loss of Estate: Rs. 15,000
ii) Loss of Consortium:
a) Spousal Consortium: Rs. 40,000
b) Parental Consortium:40,000x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000
iii) Funeral Expenses: Rs. 15,000″
37. 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
21 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 22
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.
38. The Three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. 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.
39. We, 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. We,
however, accept the submissions of learned counsel for 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”.
40. We may also notice the Three-Judge Bench judgment of
this Court relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant i.e.
Sangita Arya versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others,
(2020) 5 SCC 327. The counsel for the appellant submits that
this Court has granted only Rs.40,000/- towards “loss of
consortium” which is an indication that “consortium” cannot
be granted to children. In the above case, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- to the widow
towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- to the minor
daughter towards “loss of love and affection”. The High Court
has reduced the amount of consortium from Rs.20,000/- to
Rs.10,000/-. Para 16 of the judgment is to the following effect:
22 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 23
(Sangita Arya case, SCC p. 330, para 10)
“10. The consortium payable to the widow was reduced by the
High Court from Rs. 20,000 (as awarded by the MACT) to
Rs.10,000; the amount awarded towards loss of love and
affection to the minor daughters was reduced from Rs.10,000
to Rs. 5,000. However, the amount of Rs. 5,000 awarded by
the MACT towards funeral expenses was maintained.”
41. This Court in the above case confined its consideration
towards the income of the deceased and there was neither any
claim nor any consideration that the consortium should have
been paid to other legal heirs also. There being no claim for
payment of consortium to other legal heirs, this Court awarded
Rs.40,000/- towards consortium. No such ratio can be
deciphered from the above judgment that this Court held that
consortium is only payable as a spousal consortium and
consortium is not payable to children and parents.
42. It is relevant to notice the judgment of this Court in
United India Insurance Co. Ltd which was delivered shortly
after the above Three-Judge Bench judgment of Sangeeta Arya
specifically laid down that both spousal and parental
consortium are payable which judgment we have already
noticed above.
43. We may also notice one more Three-Judge Bench
judgment of this Court in M.H. Uma Maheshwari versus United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. Decided on 12.06.2020. In the above
case, the Tribunal had granted the amount of Rs. One Lakh
towards loss of consortium to the wife and Rs. Three Lakhs for all
the appellants towards loss of love and affection. The High Court
in the above case had reduced the amount of compensation in the
appeal filed by the Insurance Company. The High Court held that
by awarding the amount of Rs. One Lakh towards loss of
consortium to the wife, Tribunal had committed error while
awarding Rs.One Lakh to the first appellant towards the head of
“loss of love and affection”. Allowing the appeal filed by the
claimant, this Court maintained the order of MACT.
44. In the above judgment although rendered by Three-
Judge Bench, there was no challenge to award of
compensation of Rs. One Lakh towards the consortium and
Rs. Three Lakhs towards the loss of love and affection. The
appeal was filed only by the claimants and not by the
Insurance Company. The Court did not pronounce on the
correctness of the amount awarded under the head “loss of
love and affection”.
16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Janabai wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade
and Others vs. ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited, (2022) 10
23 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 24
SCC 512, has held as under:
14. 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 Company Limited v. Satinder
Kaur, 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: (SCC pp. 797-98,
paras 30-35)
“30. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, 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
24 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 25
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.
34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity
with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and
affection. Several Tribunals and the High Courts have been
awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of
love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has
recognised only three conventional heads under which
compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General, this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation
to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium,
as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is
comprehended in loss of consortium.
35. The Tribunals and the High Courts are directed to award
compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate
conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation
towards loss of love and affection as a separate head.”
17. In Rajbala and Others vs. Rakeja Begam and Others, AIR
2022 SC 5145, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
19. While considering the question of interference with the
compensation granted by the High Court under the head of
“love and affection” it is only appropriate to refer to a two
Judge-Bench decision of this Court in Jana Bhai and Ors.
25 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 26
v. ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd. Evidently, the
two Judge Bench took note of the fact that the Constitution
Bench in Pranay Sethi‘s case (supra), has recognized only
three conventional heads where compensation are awardable
viz., “loss of estate”, “loss of consortium” and the “funeral
expenses”. Then, the two Judge-Bench referred to the
decision of this Court in Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v.
Nanu Ram, which, in turn, had virtually followed by three
Judge Bench of this Court in United Ins. Co. Ltd. v.
Satinder Kaur. It was held therein that as held in Magma‟s
case (supra) though compensation under the head of “love
and affection” is impermissible compensation for “loss of
spousal consortium to wife and “loss of parental consortium
to children” are admissible.
20. After having held thus, it was further held in Jana
Bhai’s case (supra) that the amount to be awarded for “loss
of parental consortium” should be in uniformity with the
amount fixed by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi’s
case (supra). In other words, the amount payable under the
said head „parental consortium‟ shall not exceed Rs.
40,000/- qua a single child. In the said circumstances, the
amount of Rupees One lakh each granted by the High Court
to Appellants 2 & 3 under the head “love and affection”
require to be deducted and at the same time, Rs.40,000/-
each, out of it can be granted, rather, adjusted against
“parental consortium” grantable to the minor children. Thus,
an amount of Rs. 80,000/- has to be adjusted and can be
granted to the minor children viz., Appellants No. 2 & 3 and
the balance amount of Rs.1,20,000/- has to be deducted.
18. In Smt. Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and Others,
AIR 2023 SC 44, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder
Kaur and Ors. after considering Pranay Sethi (Supra),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 parental26 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 27
consortium at the rate of Rs.44,000/ each (Total Rs.1,32,000/)
is awarded to the three children.
19. In Harpreet Kaur and Others vs. Mohinder Yadav and
Others, AIR 2023 SC 111, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
12. The judgment in Rajesh v. Rajbir was followed in other
decisions. However, the approach in these decisions, was
disapproved by a five-judge bench decision in National Insurance
Co. v. Pranay Sethi, where this court indicated what should be the
correct approach in awarding amounts towards consortium: “52.
[…] 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….”
Applying this principle, in Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu
Ram this court held as follows:
“20. MACT as well as the High Court have not awarded 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 recognised by the Constitution
Bench in Pranay Sethi. 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 our power under
Article 142, and in the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate
to award an amount of Rs 15,000 towards loss of estate to
Respondents 1 and 2.
21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680)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
27 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 28
“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 : [Rajesh v.
Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54].
21.1. 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, cooperation,
affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. [Black’s
Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).]
21.2. 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”.
21.3. 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.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about
the status and worth of actual relationships. 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 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.
23. 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. A few High Courts have awarded
compensation on this count.7 However, there was no clarity with
respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded
on loss of filial consortium.”
13. On an application of the principles indicated in Magma
General Insurance Co., this court is of the opinion that the filial
and parental consortium have to be increased. Each of the children,
and the mother of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.40,000/-. Thus,
the total amount payable towards filial and parental consortium is
Rs.1,20,000/-.”
20. From the perusal of the above said various pronouncements by the
28 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 29
Hon’ble Supreme Court on the principle of “consortium”, “consortium” can be
claimed under the head of “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium” and “filial
consortium” by each claimant.
21. So far as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Ram
General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) is concerned, a perusal of the above said
judgment would show that Hon’ble Supreme Court has not discussed or
distinguished the earlier judgments in Magma General Insurance Company
Limited, Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur (3 judge bench), Somwati,
Janabai, Raj Bala, Smt. Anjali and Harpreet Kaur (supra).
22. A perusal of the Award passed by the learned Tribunal would show
that the Tribunal has reimbursed the medical bills to appellant No.1 to the tune of
Rs.24,580/- alongwith 6% interest per annum. In view of the above said
pronouncements by Hon’ble Supreme Court in regard to award of compensation
in the case of death, appellant No.1 would not be entitled for reimbursement of
medical bills and as such the above said amount is to be adjusted in the enhanced
amount of compensation.
CONCLUSION
23. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
above referred judgments, the award dated 06.02.2028 is set aside. The
appellants-claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations
made here-under:-
Sr.No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income 8462
2 Future prospects @50% 4231 (50% of 8462)
3 Deduction towards personal 4231(12693 X 1/3rd)
expenditure 1/3
4 Total Annual Dependency 1,01,544
29 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 30
(12693-4231X12)
5 Multiplier 17
6 Loss of Dependency 17,26,248
1,01,544 X17
7 Loss of Estate 18,000
8 Funeral Expenses 18,000
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,44,000/-
Spousal: 48000
Filial: 48000X2
Total Compensation Rs.19,06,248/-
Amount Awarded by the Rs.2,68,000/-
Tribunal
Enhanced amount Rs.16,38,248/-
24. A perusal of the award passed by the learned Tribunal would show
that interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date
of its realization was granted. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh
Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State
Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants-
claimants are held entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount
from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.
25. The Insurance Company-respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a
period of two months from today. Appellant No.1 would be entitled to 50% and
appellants No. 2 and 3 would be entitled to 25% each of the enhanced amount of
compensation.
26. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount of
compensation along with interest in the accounts of the claimants/appellants. The
claimants/appellants are directed to furnish the bank account details to the
30 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033739
FAO No.1364 of 2009 (O&M) 31
Tribunal.
27. The present appeal is accordingly allowed in the above said terms.
28. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA)
JUDGE
March 10, 2025
dinesh
Whether speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
31 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2025 05:19:32 :::