Supreme Court: In an appeal examining the entitlement of the wife and children of a motor accident victim to compensation for the loss of consortium, particularly the children’s entitlement to parental consortium, the Division Bench of N. Kotiswar Singh and N.V. Anjaria*, JJ., reaffirmed that a spouse is entitled to spousal consortium and each eligible child is entitled to parental consortium for the premature loss of a parent and these amounts forms part of “just compensation” in a motor accident claim. Accordingly, the Court enhanced the compensation to ₹12,47,272, with the additional amount carrying interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation.
Background
On 23 June 2012, the deceased was walking at Malkajgiri when a car, alleged to have been driven rashly, negligently and at a high speed, struck him. He sustained injuries, fell down and subsequently succumbed to those injuries while undergoing treatment at Raghavendra Hospital. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the car.
The deceased was 48 years old and was working as private security personnel. The claimants asserted that he was earning ₹9000 per month. His wife and 3 children, who were his heirs and legal representatives, instituted a claim petition seeking ₹9,00,000 as compensation for his death.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹7000 and awarded a total compensation of ₹8,44,000, with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the petition until realisation.
The claimants appealed. The Telangana High Court enhanced the compensation to ₹11,00,672, principally by adding 25 per cent towards future prospects to the monthly income of ₹7000 and recalculating the loss of dependency. However, it did not award separate parental consortium to the 3 children and awarded only ₹77,000 collectively under the conventional heads.
Issues for Consideration
-
Whether the deceased’s monthly income should have been assessed at ₹9000 instead of ₹7000 for determining loss of dependency?
-
Whether the wife and 3 children of the deceased were entitled to compensation under the heads of spousal and parental consortium, and, if so, what amount was legally payable?
The Court noted that its notice in the appeal had originally been confined to the limited question of compensation under the head of “parental consortium.” However, in order to adopt a comprehensive approach, the Court proceeded to also examine both spousal consortium and the appellants’ separate submission regarding the assessment of the deceased’s monthly income.
Analysis
Status of Legal Representatives and Dependency
The Court referred to Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643, where it was held that, in determining entitlement to compensation, the devolution of the estate is important and not merely actual dependency and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender, (2020) 11 SCC 356, wherein it was recognised that even a major married son who is earning and not fully dependent upon the deceased remains within the expression “legal representative” and can maintain a claim under Section 166(1)(c), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The principle stated there was that liability to pay compensation does not disappear merely because a particular legal representative is not dependent upon the deceased.
The Court further referred to Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, (1987) 3 SCC 234, wherein it was explained that a legal representative ordinarily means a person who represents the estate of the deceased or upon whom that estate devolves. Every legal representative who suffers because of a motor accident has a remedy for compensation.
Monthly income
On the question of monthly income, the Court declined to disturb the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹7,000 per month. It noted that while the appellants claimed the deceased, working as Chief Security Incharge, earned ₹9,000 per month, the Tribunal had relied on the testimony of the deceased’s employer’s own Director (PW-3), who stated that the deceased’s salary was ₹7,000 per month. The Court held that the Tribunal had committed no error in accepting this figure.
Consortium — Meaning and Scope of
The Court traced the development of the law relating to consortium through several decisions. In Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54, the Court explained the concept of consortium as encompassing the spouse’s right to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and other aspects of the marital relationship. The Court recognised that the loss of companionship, love, care and protection suffered by the surviving spouse is compensable.
The Court further relied on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, where in it was clarified that consortium is a “compendious term” covering, spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium. The Court explained that parental consortium compensates a child for the loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training that would have been available had the parent remained alive. Filial consortium, conversely, concerns the loss suffered by parents upon the accidental death of a child.
Conventional Heads and Periodic Enhancement
The Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein a comprehensive and realistic approach to the conventional heads of compensation was adopted and fixed ₹15,000 for loss of estate, ₹40,000 for loss of consortium and ₹15,000 for funeral expenses. Importantly, the Court directed that these amounts should be enhanced by 10 per cent every 3 years in order to maintain consistency with changing economic conditions.
The Court reiterated that consortium is an “important and indispensable head” of compensation in motor accident claims and that the amount is to be increased by 10 per cent at the end of every three years, in accordance with Pranay Sethi.
Application of the Law to the Present Case
The Court found that Appellant 1 was the wife of the deceased and Appellants 2—4 were his sons and daughter, aged between 18 and 21 years. The Court specifically noted that their dependency upon the deceased was never in dispute. Therefore, they were both legal representatives and dependants and were entitled to parental consortium.
The Court noted that the Tribunal had committed a manifest error by awarding only ₹5000 to the wife and making no award of parental consortium to the children. The High Court, although enhancing the overall compensation, also failed to discharge its legal duty of awarding the appropriate amount under consortium.
Applying Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance, the Court held that each of the 4 claimants was entitled to ₹40,000 as consortium, classified as spousal consortium for the wife and parental consortium for each of the 3 children. Since the amount was required to be enhanced by 10 per cent after 3 years, each claimant became entitled to ₹48,400.
The Court retained the High Court’s calculation of loss of dependency and recalculated the remaining heads as follows:
|
Head of Compensation |
Amount |
|
Loss of dependency |
₹10,23,672 |
|
Spousal consortium to wife |
₹48,400 |
|
Parental consortium to three children |
₹1,45,200 |
|
Total consortium |
₹1,93,600 |
|
Funeral expenses |
₹15,000 |
|
Loss of estate |
₹15,000 |
|
Total compensation |
₹12,47,272 |
Decision
The Court held that the wife and all 3 children were entitled to compensation for consortium. The wife was entitled to spousal consortium, while the children were entitled to parental consortium.
Accordingly, the Court modified the High Court’s judgment and enhanced the total compensation from ₹11,00,672 to ₹12,47,272. Thus, the additional amount payable was ₹1,46,600, with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation.
The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the additional amount with interest before the Tribunal within 6 weeks. Upon deposit, the claimants were to receive the amount in equal proportion, after verification, through direct credit into their respective bank accounts.
[Sameem Begum v. K. Venkat Swamy, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1577, decided on 14-8-2026]
*Judgment Authored by Justice N.V. Anjaria
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: Mr. Vamsikrishna Thota, Adv., Mr. T. Vishwarupa Chary, Adv., Mr. Shaurya Mishra, Adv., Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv., Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR
