New Delhi : The Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation payable to the wife and three children of a pedestrian killed in a motor accident, holding that the children were wrongly denied any amount towards parental consortium by both the Tribunal and the High Court.
A Bench of Justices N.V. Anjaria and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was dealing with a Civil Appeal arising out of a judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, which had enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad from Rs.8,44,000 to Rs.11,00,672, with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum. The claim arose from an accident on 23rd June, 2012, in which the deceased, Shaik Janimiya, a pedestrian in Malkajgiri, was struck by a car driven in a rash and negligent manner and succumbed to his injuries. The appellants, his wife and three children, had sought compensation of Rs.9,00,000.
Notice in the appeal had been issued on the limited question of compensation under the head of parental consortium, but the Court, in order to adopt a comprehensive approach, examined the claim in respect of both spousal and parental consortium. It also considered, though not the subject of notice, the appellants' submission that the deceased's monthly income had been wrongly assessed at Rs.7,000 instead of Rs.9,000, and held that the Tribunal committed no error in relying on the testimony of the deceased's employer to arrive at the lower figure.
Tracing the law on consortium, the Court referred to its earlier decisions in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender, holding that all legal representatives of a deceased victim, including major and earning children, are entitled to maintain a compensation claim under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, irrespective of actual dependency, since liability to pay compensation does not turn on dependency alone. It also referred to Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai on the meaning of “legal representative” under the Act.
The Court furthermore, also traced the evolution of the conventional heads of compensation from the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, which was found to be redundant and unworkable in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra and Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy, and noted that consortium is compendious in nature, encompassing spousal, parental and filial consortium, as explained in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram. It observed that parental consortium compensates a child for the loss of a parent's aid, protection, affection, guidance and training, while spousal consortium compensates a surviving spouse for loss of company, comfort and affection, concepts earlier elaborated in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh.
Relying on National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, which fixed the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively, with a 10 per cent increase every three years, the Court held that each of the four appellants, being the wife and three children of the deceased, was entitled to Rs.40,000 under the head of consortium, enhanced by 10 per cent to Rs.48,400 each, classified as spousal consortium for the wife and parental consortium for the children.
The Court held that the Tribunal had committed a manifest error in granting only Rs.5,000 to the wife and no parental consortium to the children, and that the High Court, while enhancing the overall compensation, had likewise failed to award the due amount under this head, granting only Rs.77,000 collectively under all conventional heads. Recalculating the compensation, the Court maintained the amount awarded by the High Court under the head of loss of dependency, increased the amounts under funeral expenses and loss of estate from Rs.10,000 each to Rs.15,000 each, and added a total of Rs.1,93,600 towards spousal and parental consortium, arriving at a revised total compensation of Rs.12,47,272 as against the Rs.11,00,672 awarded by the High Court.
The Court directed the insurance company to deposit the additional amount of Rs.1,46,600 with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation, with the Tribunal concerned, within six weeks, and directed that the amount be released to the appellants in equal proportion by direct credit to their respective bank accounts after due verification.
The judgment and award of the High Court was modified to the above extent, and the Appeal was allowed.
Appearances
For the Appellants: Mr. Vamsikrishna Thota, Advocate, with Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Advocate-on-Record.
For the Respondents: Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate-on-Record.
Case Title : Sameem Begum and Others v. K. Venkat Swamy and Another (Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 18553 of 2023)
