Jharkhand High Court

Sabita Devi vs Dineshwar Sharma on 24 July, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                    2025:JHHC:20629




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                           M.A. No. 80 of 2023
                                        ----

1. Sabita Devi, aged about 45 years, wife of Late Kangresh Bhuiyan

2. Pintu Kumar, aged about 12 years, son of Late Kangresh Bhuiyan

3. Arti Kumar, aged about 8 years, daughter of Late Kangresh Bhuiyan

4. Saraswati Kumari, aged about 10 years, daughter of Late Kangresh Bhuiyan All are resident of village - Majhgawan, PO - Dantar, PS - Bashishth Nagar, District - Chatra, Jharkhand (Claimant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are minors and they are represented through their mother - claimant No.1) .... Appellants

-- Versus --

1. Dineshwar Sharma, son of Shri Andrika Sharma, resident of West Jagjiwan Road, Gaya, PO and PS - Rampur, District - Gaya, Bihar

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2nd Floor, R.J., Palace, Rai Kashinath More, Gandhi Maidan, Gaya, PO and PS - Gaya, Bihar -

             823001                                         .... Respondents
                                      ----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Appellants :- Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.2 :- Ms. Shweta Singh, Advocate

----

06/24.07.2025 Heard Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants, Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.1 and Ms. Shweta Singh, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent No.2

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award

dated 09.02.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

District Judge - 1, Chatra in Motor Accident Claim Case No.07 of 2018 for

enhancement of the claim.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the

claimants before the learned Tribunal were the wife and three minor

2025:JHHC:20629

children of the deceased. He further submits that the claim case was

instituted stating that on 26.06.2016 the deceased Kangresh Bhuiyan was

returning from Dobhi to his house at village - Majhgawan on a bus

bearing Registration No. BR - 2Q - 7951. When the bus reached at

Nagar at around 6:00 hours, then the electric wire got entangled in the

neck of deceased Kangresh Bhuiyan due to which he fell down on the

road and got seriously injured. He submits that the deceased was forced

to sit on the roof of the bus by the driver and khalasi. The deceased was

taken to Hunterganj Hospital from where he was referred to Nagar

Medical Hospital but while he was being taken, he died on the way. He

submits that on this ground the claim case was filed. He further submits

that the learned tribunal has been pleased to allow a total sum of

Rs.11,78,800/- and wrongly considered the notional income to the tune

of Rs.9,000/- only wherein the deceased was a semi-skilled worker. He

submits in view of that the monthly income may kindly be modified.

According to him, the loss of consortium has been wrongly allowed to the

tune of Rs.40,000/- in a case where the spouse and three minor children

are claimants, the future prospect has been wrongly considered as 10%

in place of 25% in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi

reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the deduction has also been wrongly

made as 1/3rd in place of 1/4th and the interest is also not in accordance

with law.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company opposes

the prayer and submits that the insurance company has already complied

and satisfied the award and the entire payment has already been made.

She submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the

2025:JHHC:20629

learned Court has rightly calculated the quantum. On this ground, she

submits that this appeal may kindly be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the owner submits that the

vehicle in question was insured and the learned Tribunal has rightly

passed the award and there is no illegality in the impugned award.

6. It is an admitted position that the death has occurred. From the

impugned award, it transpires that the appellants herein were not placed

any document to suggest that the deceased was a skilled or unskilled

worker and even not the oral evidence has been led on that fact and in

view of that the learned Tribunal has calculated the income on notional

basis and in that view of the matter so far the income is concerned there

is no illegality in the award, as such the contention of learned counsel

appearing for the appellants are not being accepted by this Court. The

age of the deceased was said to be 42 years in light of the postmortem

report and in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi reported in

(2017) 16 SCC 680 the future prospect for the age between 40 to 50

years it should be 25% and in that view of the matter the award on

future prospect will be 25% on the established income in place of 10% in

terms of the impugned order.

7. Admittedly, there are four dependents and in view of that the

deduction made will be 1/4th in place of 1/3rd. The Court finds that the

consortium has already been awarded in accordance with law and in the

Pranay Shetty judgment it has been held that at 70% in that head will be

awarded and 10% for every three years has to be added in the said value

and this aspect of the matter has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Janabai WD/O Dinkarrao Ghorpade and Others

2025:JHHC:20629

versus ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited reported in

(2022) 10 SCC 512 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded the

consortium under the said head for the spouse consortium and parental

consortium for the children and in paragraph Nos.13 and 14, this aspect

has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is as under :

13. The appellants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal before the High Court. The Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.1, was rendered when the appeal was pending before the High Court but since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was accepted, there was no occasion for the High Court to examine the question of enhancement of compensation. We find that the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 particularly in respect of future prospects and other damages in terms of the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution, we have decided to recompute the amount of compensation to be in tune with the constitution Bench Judgment.

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 & Ors.2, 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:

"30. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram4 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,

2025:JHHC:20629

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 2 (2021) 11 SCC 780 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 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 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] .

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 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] , 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 [Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 :(2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 146 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153] , this

2025:JHHC:20629

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."

15. The evidence of appellant No. 1 on affidavit is that her husband was getting salary of Rs.12,450/- and that he was over 50 years of age. The learned Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- in the absence of proof of salary. Therefore, keeping in view the income and the age and the future prospects in terms of judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi, the compensation is assessed as follows:

                                 Head                          Amount
         A               Loss of earnings @ monthly            Rs. 10,12,440.00
                         salary @ 10,000 and future
                         prospects @ 15% (6670 + 1000
                         X 12 X 11)
         B               Loss of Estate                        Rs. 15,000.00
         C               Spousal consortium for wife           Rs. 40,000.00


                         Parental     consortium   for   two
                         children (appellant Nos. 2 and 3 @
                         Rs.40,000/- each                      Rs. 80,000.00
         D               Funeral Expenses                      Rs. 15,000.00
                         Total                                 Rs. 11,62,440.00
                         Rounded off                           Rs. 11,63,000.00

8. In view of the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court the

wife is entitled for Rs.40,000/- of the consortium and the children are

further entitled for the parental consortium, as such the award is

modified to the effect that wife will be entitled for Rs.40,000/- on account

of spousal consortium and parental consortium for three children will be

Rs.40,000/- each.

2025:JHHC:20629

9. In light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Dharampal and Others versus U.P. State Road Transport

Corporation reported in (2008) 12 SCC 208 the interest will be @

7.5% per annum from the date of the application.

10. In view of the above, the award will be modified to the effect