Kerala High Court: While deciding whether siblings were entitled to compensation under “loss of love and affection” in a motor accident claim, a Single Judge Bench of Shoba Annamma Eapen, J., partly allowed the appeal and held that siblings cannot claim compensation under the head of “loss of love and affection” and that only the mother is entitled to consortium at Rs 40,000. The Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by Rs 2.66 lakhs.
Background
On 28 October 2014 at around 9.00 a.m., the deceased was riding a scooter when Respondent 2, allegedly riding a motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, collided with it. The deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to them on the same day. The claimants, being the mother and siblings of the deceased, sought compensation. The owner and rider admitted the accident but denied negligence, attributing fault to the deceased. They also stated the rider had a valid licence and the vehicle was insured. Respondent 3 (insurer) admitted the policy’s validity but disputed the quantum and pointed out that the deceased was not wearing a helmet. The Tribunal awarded Rs 12.94 lakhs with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and proportionate costs against the insurer.
In appeal, the claimants sought enhancement mainly on notional income, loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate and pain and sufferings and loss of consortium or loss of love and affection. The insurer contended that only the mother could claim consortium and argued that the siblings were not entitled to a separate compensation under the head of loss of love and affection. However, the claimants contended that no appeal was filed by the insurer, and that siblings could receive compensation under “loss of love and affection”.
Issue
Whether siblings are entitled for compensation under the head of ‘loss of love and affection’.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that no appeal was filed by the insurer challenging the Tribunal’s award and that it is a settled position there shall no reduction of total compensation awarded, in a claimant’s appeal. The Court followed Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236, and enhanced the notional income from Rs 5000 to Rs 9500 as the deceased was an electrician-cum-plumber.
The Court opined that since the monthly income of the deceased was refixed, the compensation towards loss of dependency must be recalculated. The Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and observed that upon refixation of income and addition of future prospects, the amount would be arrived at Rs 13,300 for calculating dependency. The claimants would be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs 14.36 lakhs towards loss of dependency, and not Rs 8.10 lakhs, as awarded by the Tribunal.
The Court noted that the Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs 25,000 each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and no amount was awarded under the head pain and sufferings. The Court observed that compensation under conventional heads could be fixed at Rs 15,000 each, and the additional amount of Rs 20,000 could be awarded under the head of pain and sufferings, thereby adjusting the heads to each other.
The Court referred to Pranay Sethi (supra) which recognised only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded in a death case viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The Court also relied on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, wherein the Supreme Court interpretated the concept of consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium, and held that loss of love and affection is subsumed within loss of consortium and cannot be awarded as a separate head of compensation. It was clarified that on the death of a husband or wife, the surviving spouse is entitled to spousal consortium; in the case of death of a parent, the children are entitled to parental consortium; and in the event of the death of a child, the parents are entitled to filial consortium. The Court also relied on V. Pathmavathi v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 158, wherein the ratio of Pranay Sethi (supra) was reiterated, and it was held that no separate award under the head of “loss of love and affection” can be awarded to siblings.
Consequently, the Court held that the siblings were not entitled to compensation under ‘loss of love and affection’, and only the mother was entitled to consortium, and accordingly, deducted Rs 3.60 lakhs from the Tribunal’s grant of Rs 4 lakhs towards love and affection, retaining only Rs 40,000 as consortium to the mother.
The Court noted no interference was called for under other heads as they were just and reasonable and enhanced the award by Rs 2.66 lakhs, thereby resulting in a total compensation of Rs 15.60 lakhs, with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs against the insurer. The Court directed the insurer to deposit the amount within two months of receipt of the certified copy.
[Mariyakutty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 3039, decided on 2-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: AVM. Salahudin, Advocate.
For the Respondent: P.K. Manojkumar, SC.