The Supreme Court docket has reiterated {that a} authorized consultant of an individual killed in a motor accident can preserve a declare for compensation even when the actual authorized consultant was not financially depending on the deceased.
The Court docket, counting on its earlier selections, emphasised that “legal responsibility to pay compensation underneath the Act doesn’t stop due to absence of dependency of the authorized consultant involved.”
“Each authorized consultant who suffers on account of the loss of life of an individual due to a motorized vehicle accident has a treatment for realisation of compensation to be paid underneath completely different heads.”, noticed the bench of Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice NV Anjaria. The Court docket acknowledged that authorized representatives who are usually not dependants are entitled to assert compensation underneath heads similar to lack of consortium.
The bench was coping with a declare arising from the loss of life of Shaik Janimiya, who died after being hit by a automobile whereas strolling in Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, in June 2012. His spouse and three youngsters had been the claimants.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation of ₹8.44 lakh. The Excessive Court docket subsequently enhanced it to ₹11,00,672, together with ₹10,23,672 in direction of lack of dependency.
Earlier than the Supreme Court docket, the claimants sought additional enhancement, significantly on the bottom that the three youngsters of the deceased had been additionally entitled to compensation for lack of parental consortium.
Permitting the enchantment, the judgment authored by Justice Anjaria held that precise monetary dependency shouldn’t be a prerequisite for claiming consortium.
The Court docket referred to Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance coverage Firm Restricted and One other (2007) 10 SCC 643, the place it was “expounded that legal responsibility to pay compensation underneath the Act doesn’t stop due to absence of dependency of the authorized consultant involved…”. It was additionally held within the mentioned judgment that “devolution of the deceased’s property, quite than precise monetary dependency, was the related consideration for figuring out whether or not the declare was maintainable.”
The judgment additionally relied on Nationwide Insurance coverage Firm Restricted v. Birender, which handled claims by main, married and incomes sons of a deceased particular person. The Court docket in that case held that such individuals might nonetheless qualify as authorized representatives underneath Part 166(1)(c) of the Motor Automobiles Act, though the quantum of compensation might rely upon the extent of their dependency
The Bench additionally referred to its earlier ruling in Gujarat State Highway Transport Company v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, which held {that a} authorized consultant ordinarily means an individual who legally represents the property of the deceased or upon whom the property devolves.
Importantly, the Court docket noticed that each authorized consultant who suffers on account of a loss of life attributable to a motor accident has a treatment for restoration of compensation underneath the completely different heads recognised in regulation.
“In different phrases, when all such individuals lined throughout the expression “authorized consultant” are entitled to take care of the compensation petition and search compensation for lack of lifetime of the sufferer of a motor accident, by advantage of that very precept and in view of the idea of consortium, it is likely one of the heads of compensation which turns into payable in motor accident declare circumstances.”
Youngsters entitled to parental consortium
The Court docket’s ruling additionally addressed the separate head of consortium, holding that it is a vital element of simply compensation.
The Bench defined that consortium shouldn’t be confined to the surviving partner. It contains spousal, parental and filial consortium. Parental consortium compensates a toddler for the lack of parental support, safety, affection, steering, society and coaching following the untimely loss of life of a dad or mum.
Within the current case, the deceased’s spouse was entitled to spousal consortium, whereas his three youngsters, aged between 18 and 21, had been entitled to parental consortium. The Court docket discovered that the Claims Tribunal had dedicated a “manifest error” by awarding solely Rs 5,000 to the spouse and nothing to the youngsters underneath this head
Making use of the regulation, the Court docket noticed:
“Within the current case, appellant No. 1 is the spouse whereas appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons and the daughter of the deceased. All the youngsters are aged between 18 and 21 years. They might be legitimately and legally entitled to quantity of compensation underneath the pinnacle of consortium, spousal in addition to parental. It was by no means in dispute that appellant Nos. 2 to 4 had been dependants of the deceased. Appellant Nos. 2 to 4, due to this fact, must have been thought of as authorized representatives and dependants of the deceased to be entitled to parental consortium.”
The Court docket relied upon Pranay Sethi v. Nationwide Insurance coverage Co. Ltd. (2017) 16 SCC 680, which fastened ₹40,000 as the quantity for lack of consortium and directed that the standard quantities be enhanced by 10% each three years.
Making use of the enhancement, the Court docket decided the consortium quantity at ₹48,400 for every claimant.
Accordingly, the spouse was awarded ₹48,400 in direction of spousal consortium, whereas every of the 2 sons and the daughter was awarded ₹48,400 in direction of parental consortium.
“The Excessive Court docket awarded complete Rs. 11,00,672/- underneath completely different heads. As per the above calculation, the overall quantity of compensation now arrived at, by including the consortium figures would come to Rs. 12,47,272/-. The extra quantity of Rs. 1,46,600/- shall be payable with 7.5% curiosity from the date of submitting of the petition until realisation. The Insurance coverage Firm is directed to deposit with the Tribunal involved, the above extra quantity with curiosity as offered, inside six weeks.”, the Court docket held.
The enchantment was allowed within the aforesaid phrases.
Trigger Title: SAMEEM BEGUM AND OTHERS VERSUS Okay. VENKAT SWAMY AND ANOTHER
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 809
Click here to download judgment
Look:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Vamsikrishna Thota, Adv. Mr. T. Vishwarupa Chary, Adv. Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR
