[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dharamvir Mor & Ors vs Mahinder Singh & Ors on 22 April, 2026

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

DHARAMVIR MOR AND OTHERS ......Appellants

Vs.

MAHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ......Respondents

Reserved on: 21.04.2026
Pronounced on: 22.04.2026
Uploaded on: 27.04.2026

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO
Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Ms. Mamta Saini, Advocate
for the appellants.

Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.1.

Mr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate and
Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

Mr. R.C.Kapoor, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

11.09.2015 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short '1988 Act'), by the learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (in short 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of

compensation, granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of

Rs.19,06,000/- along with interest @ 9 % per annum on account of death of

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

deceased Manjeet Kaur in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on

29.03.2012.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined

to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed

narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced and is

skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that

the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and

deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, she prays that the present appeal be

allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be

enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance

Company contends that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on

the higher side and he has filed separate appeal bearing No.FAO-8584-2015,

titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dharamvir Mor and others"

for seeking reduction of compensation. He further contends that learned

Tribunal has committed an error in law by awarding compensation

separately under the heads of "loss of consortium" as well as "loss of love

and affection." He has placed reliance upon the Constitution Bench

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Pranay Sethi, 2017) 16 SCC 680] to contend that compensation under the

head of "loss of love and affection" is not permissible, and the claimants are

entitled only to compensation under the conventional head of "loss of

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

consortium." He furthermore contends that compensation awarded for loss

of estate is also on the higher side.

9. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, he prays that the

present appeal be dismissed and the impugned award passed by the learned

Tribunal be suitably modified by reducing the amount of compensation.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

whole record of this case.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121],

laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of

the same are as under:-

"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards

personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units

indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply

standardised deductions. Having a considered several

subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that

where the deceased was married, the deduction towards

personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-

third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is

2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family

members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of

dependent family members exceeds six.

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are

the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In

regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would

tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the

possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event

the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut

drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the

father is likely to have his own income and will not be

considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be

considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the

contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as

dependants, because they will either be independent and

earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and

siblings, only d the mother would be considered to be a

dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and

living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to

the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large

and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case

where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger

non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living

expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the

family will be taken as two-third.

                                       *            *            *           *            *

                                             *

42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as

mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

applying Susamma Thomas³, Trilok Chandra and Charlie),

which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age

groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for

every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to

35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and

M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every

five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60

years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified

the law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

on the following aspects:-

(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine

multiplicand;

(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased;

(C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier;

(D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss

of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with

escalation;

(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for

different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed

salary.

The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned,

we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

Rajesh². It has granted Rs.25,000 towards funeral

expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards 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 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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

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.

                                       *                  *           *            *

                                              *

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 salary less

tax.

59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed (or) on a

fixed salary, an addition 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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

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 paras 30 to 32 of Sarla

Verma⁴ which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in

the Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 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."

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &

Others [2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and

Pranay Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant

paras of the same are reproduced as under:-

"21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi²

dealt with the various heads under which compensation

is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

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, 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.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

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. However, there was

no clarity with respect to the principles on which

compensation could be awarded on loss of filial

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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

laid down in Pranay Sethi². 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.

9. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the age of the

deceased was 34 years at the time of accident. The factum of age is not

disputed by either of the party before this Court. Consequently, the age of

the deceased is taken as 34 years.

10. A further perusal of the award reveals that deceased was stated

to be a homemaker. Her monthly income was asserted to be Rs.20,000/- but

no documentary evidence substantiating her income was produced before the

learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal has erred in taking notional

income of deceased housewife as Rs.8,000/-per month.

11. This Court in FAO-1292-2006, titled as 'Jasbir Singh and

another Vs. Surjit Singh and others', decided on 22.03.2018 while

assessing the notional income of the housewife has held as under:-

"In FAO No. 218 of 2014, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while relying upon the principles laid down in Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 673), made the following observations:-

"Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even while noticing that the income of a skilled worker in 2012 was approximately Rs.8000/- the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.9000/-. As per him once the notional income had been taken a deduction had to be made for personal expenses. This argument is

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

flawed. In Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others reported as 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 673 (where the accident had taken place in 1981) the Hon'ble Supreme Court evaluated the contribution of a house wife at Rs.3000/-per month. The accident in the present case took place after 23 years. In my considered opinion to tag a house wife as a 'skilled worker' alone does not do complete justice to her multifarious role as a home manager. Keeping in view the lapse of 23 years between the accident in the case of Lata Wadhwa and the present accident and my conclusion that a house wife is something more than a mere skilled worker it would not be unreasonable to estimate the contribution of the deceased in the present case at a higher figure. On the whole I see no reason for reducing the quantum."

7. I find sufficient reason to follow the judgment in FAO No. 218 of 2014, particularly as I am informed that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the order in this case has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Similarly, the SLP filed in the other case cited by the appellants has also met the same fate. Consequently, these orders have attained finality, leaving no scope for further dispute regarding their binding nature.

8. It is imperative to acknowledge the multifaceted role of a housewife as a homemaker. Her contributions extend beyond measurable economic parameters, encompassing household management, child care, emotional support, and the upkeep of familial stability. These services, though often unrecognized in monetary terms, are invaluable to the functioning and well- being of a household. In assessing compensation, the court must MOHD AYUB factor in this indispensable contribution, which would

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

otherwise necessitate considerable expenditure if outsourced. In view of the above, it is just and reasonable to determine the monthly income of the deceased Charanjit Kaur, housewife at Rs.9,000/- per month, therefore, the award requires interference by the Court."

12. In Jasbir Singh's case (supra), the notional income of a

housewife was taken as Rs.9000/-. Therefore, in the present case, with the

accident occurring in 2012, and in view of sustained inflation, the rising cost

of living, and jurisprudential acknowledgment of the far-reaching economic

contribution of homemakers, it is both just and reasonable to reassess the

notional income of the deceased.

13. The work of a housewife transcends caretaking embracing

preparation of meals for the entire family; procurement of groceries and

household supplies; cleaning and maintenance of the house and

surroundings; financial planning and budget management; child care and

education; tending to elderly dependents; coordinating repairs and

homebased healthcare etc. These services, if procured in the open market,

would command substantial remuneration, underscoring the integral role

played by a homemaker in family stability.

14. In light of the above legal position and having due regard to the

facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds it appropriate to

assess the notional income of the deceased-Manjeet Kaur at Rs.14,000/- per

month.

15. The learned Tribunal has erred in not adding future prospects

while calculating the compensation.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

16. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the

respondent No.3-Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal committed

an error in law by awarding compensation separately under the heads of

"loss of consortium" as well as "loss of love and affection" is concerned, the

said submission merits acceptance.

29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Pathmavathi and Others v.

Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, 2026 INSC 131, has

recently clarified the legal position with regard to compensation under

conventional heads. The Apex Court has categorically held that "loss of love

and affection" is not an independent or distinct head of compensation, and

the same stands subsumed within the broader concept of consortium, which

includes spousal, parental and filial consortium. Consequently, separate

compensation under the head of loss of love and affection is impermissible.

The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:-

"22. In Rajesh (supra), this Court recognised "loss of love and affection" as a distinct head of compensation, reflecting the non-pecuniary deprivation suffered by family members upon the untimely death of a loved one. However, the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) expressly disapproved this approach holding that Rajesh (supra) was rendered per incuriam and that compensation should be confined to three conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses in order to preserve consistency and certainty in awards. Observing disagreement, Pranay Sethi (supra) held thus:

52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54]. It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

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 [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421], 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 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.

23. There can be no quarrel with the binding nature of Pranay Sethi (supra). Judicial discipline demands that a Constitution MOHD AYUB Bench decision must prevail over a judgment of a Bench of

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

lesser strength. Accordingly, this Court is constrained to follow the law declared therein.

24. That said, it is difficult to ignore the conceptual tension that underlies this exclusion. The head of "future prospects"

itself is a creation of judicial interpretation, evolved to respond to socio- economic realities and the legitimate expectations of dependents. If the law is capable of recognising anticipated economic progression as a valid loss, it is not too clear why emotional deprivation manifested in loss of love and affection must be viewed as an impermissible head, especially when Chapter XII of the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation meant to help people in distress arising out of road accidents.

25. The concern expressed in Pranay Sethi (supra) was primarily one of consistency and avoidance of unguided discretion. However, consistency, though desirable, cannot be elevated to a point where it eclipses the core objective of awarding "just compensation". The law must remain responsive to lived human realities, especially in cases involving the sudden rupture of familial bonds.

26. It is in this context that the subsequent decision of this Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram17 assumes significance. This Court expanded the ambit of "consortium" to include parental and filial consortium, implicitly acknowledging the emotional and relational loss suffered by children and parents alike. (2018) 18 SCC 130 This doctrinal expansion suggests that the distinction between "consortium" and "loss of love and affection" may be one of form rather than substance. The coordinate Bench ruled as follows:

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 MOHD AYUB consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

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: [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 MOHD AYUB providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

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 [Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435;

Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74]. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial 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.

27. Interestingly, we find from paragraph 25 of Magma General Insurance (supra) that apart from Rs. 80,000/- awarded on account of filial consortium, this Court awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss and affection in addition.

28. More recently, in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Satinder Kaur18, a three-Judge Bench of this Court harmonised the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance (supra) to ensure uniformity in the award of compensation under conventional heads. Reaffirming the binding nature of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court held that compensation in death cases is confined to three conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. At the same time, drawing upon Magma MOHD AYUB General Insurance (supra), this Court clarified that

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

consortium is a compendious concept encompassing spousal, parental and filial consortium. It was further held that loss of love and affection is subsumed within loss of consortium and cannot be awarded as a separate head. This Court held as follows:

(2021) 11 SC 780

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], 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], 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.

29. Consistent with the aforesaid position but notwithstanding the reservations noted earlier, this Court is bound by the law declared by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), which does not countenance "loss of love and affection" as a distinct head of compensation. As subsequently clarified in Satinder Kaur (supra), referring to both Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance (supra), the non-pecuniary MOHD AYUB loss arising from deprivation of love and affection is

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)

comprehended within the broader head of "consortium". Consequently, no separate award under the head of loss of love and affection is warranted.."

30. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, the award of compensation granted by the learned

Tribunal under the separate head of "loss of love and affection" cannot be

sustained in law. Accordingly, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the

said head is liable to be deducted from the total compensation. A further

perusal of the award reveals that compensation awarded for loss of estate

and funeral expenses is also on higher side, therefore, the award requires

indulgence of this Court.

CONCLUSION

17. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award

dated 29.03.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Bhiwani is modified accordingly. The appellants/claimants are entitled to the

enhanced amount of compensation from the respondents, as per the

calculations made here-under:-

                 Sr. No.                            Heads                    Compensation Awarded
                        1          Monthly Income                    Rs.14,000/-
                        2          Future prospects @ 40%            Rs.5,600/- (14,000 X 40%)
                        3          Deduction     towards    personal Rs.6,533/- (19,600 X 1/3)


                       4.          Total Income                      Rs.13,067/- (19,600-6,533)



                        6          Annual Dependency                 Rs.25,08,864/- (13,067 X 12 X 16)
                        7          Loss of Estate                    Rs.15,000/-


                        8          Funeral Expenses                  Rs.15,000/-


authenticity of this order/judgment.
               FAO-6537-2016 (O&M)


                        9          Loss of Consortium               Rs.1,20,000/-

                                   Parental : 40,000 x 2
                                   Spousal : 40,000 x 1
                      10           Total Compensation               Rs.26,58,864/-
                      11           Deduction

Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.19,06,000/- 12 Enhanced amount Rs.7,52,864/- (26,58,864-19,06,000)

18. 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 Nadu State Transport

Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the amount so

calculated shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of

the claim petition, till the date of realization.

19. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the enhanced amount along with interest at the rate of 9% with the Tribunal

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this

judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the appellants-

claimants in their bank accounts. The appellants-claimants are directed to