Jharkhand High Court
Most. Babi Devi vs Branch Manager on 4 September, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:26945
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 286 of 2023
1. Most. Babi Devi, W/o Late Duryodhan Singh Munda
2. Naresh Munda, S/o Late Duryodhan Singh Munda
3. Jitendar Munda, S/o Late Duryodhan Singh Munda, Appellant No.3 is minor
being represented through Appellant No.1, his mother and natural guardian
who has no adverse interest against him, All R/o Village-Dulmi,
P.O.-Lowahatu, P.S.Sonahatu, Dist.-Ranchi .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., At Dangra Toli Chowk,
Purulia Road, P.O.-Ranchi, P.S.- Lower Bazar, Dist.-Ranchi
2. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., At Sachindra Sadan, S.N.
Ganguly Road, Main Road, P.O.-Ranchi, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi
3. Nagendra Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Dawarika Singh, R/o Gandhinagar
Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Tatisilway, Dist.-Ranchi
4. Sanjay Baraik, S/o Late Sadanand Baraik, R/o Tangar Toli, P.O. & P.S.-
Bundu, Dist.-Ranchi .... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Karan Shah Deo, Advocate
For the Respondent-1 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent-2 : Ms. Shweta Singh, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
07 / Dated : 04.09.2025
1. The claimants are in appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded
in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 110 of 2018 under Section 166 of
the M.V. Act of Rs. 14,46,336/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum on the awarded amount for the death of Duryodhan Singh
Munda in a motor vehicle accident involving a bus bearing Registration
No. JH01BD-8529. The facts are not in dispute.
2. The ground on which the present appeal has been filed is that the
deceased was survived by three claimants, whereas the computation of
compensation under the head of consortium has been allowed taking
only one claimant i.e. Rs.40,000/-. It is contended that in view of the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2021) 11 SCC 780
(United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satvinder
Kaur & Ors.), the compensation has to be computed, considering the
loss of love and affection suffered by each of the claimant on account of
the accidental death of the close relative. In view of the ratio laid down
2025:JHHC:26945
in paras-34 and 37.12, the compensation under the head of consortium
has to be allowed so that the claimants will be entitled to the loss under
the heading of spousal consortium Rs.40,000/- and parental consortium
(Rs.40,000/- x 2) Rs.80,000/-.
3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company relied on 2023 (2) TAC
713 (SC) (Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bhagat
Singh Rawat & Ors.) wherein, similar claims were made and
considering the ratio as decided in (2018) 18 SCC 130 (Magma
General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru
Ram & Ors.) only Rs.40,000/- was allowed. It is argued that the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi by a
Five Judges Bench and further considering the ratio laid down in both
Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Limited, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded Rs.40,000/- under the heading of
consortium. It is further contended that the dictionary meaning of the
word consortium is the legal right of one spouse to the company of her
husband/wife, and can be expanded to include others when spousal
consortium is not paid.
4. It is also argued that two of the children cannot be regarded as
dependents, as one of the them was major at the time of accident.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, I
find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the Insurance
Company that in Pranay Sethi, only 40,000/- was allowed under the
head of consortium. A child cannot claim for the loss of consortium of
his/her parents or for loss of natural love and affection when
compensation has been computed on multiplier basis, when payment
has already been made under the heading of consortium. True import of
the authority relied upon on behalf of the claimants, is that the
consortium will be payable under this head to the child, if no payment
has been made to anyone else under the head of consortium. Otherwise,
it will multiply with the number of dependents, making the object of
restricting it to Rs 40,000 in Pranay Sethi case as redundant. Number of
dependents are relevant mainly for factoring the dependency. In M.H.
Uma Maheshwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC
2025:JHHC:26945
400, it has been held that where compensation has already been
awarded under the head of consortium, no compensation for loss of
love and affection was admissible. Thus, the plea that each of the child
were entitled to compensation under the head of consortium is
unsustainable.
Miscellaneous Appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed.
Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satendra
