Married Daughters Not Dependent Legal Heirs, But They Are Entitled To Loss Of Consortium On Account Of Father’s Death Due To Motor Accident: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The appeal before the High Court was filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla (MACT) whereby the MACT had held that the claimants/respondents were entitled to compensation of Rs 15,80,000 along with interest.

The Single Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur said, “In the present case, there are 6 claimants. However, claimants namely Santosh, Meena Devi, Maina Devi and Kamlesh are married daughters of deceased. Therefore, they cannot be considered as dependent legal heirs of deceased Surat Ram and thus only two claimants i.e. respondents No.1 and 6 are to be considered as dependent claimants and they shall be entitled for the amount of compensation. However, daughters shall be entitled for loss of consortium only on account of death of their father.”

Senior Advocate Mr.G.C. Gupta represented the Appellant while Advocate Ashir Kaith represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The incident dates back to the year 2009 when the deceased Surat Ram, working as a T-mate in the Electricity Department, and his co-employee boarded the bus being driven by respondent 1, owned and possessed by respondent 2 and insured by respondent 3- Oriental Insurance Company Limited (present appellant). When the brakes of the bus were applied suddenly, Surat Ram fell out of the bus and suffered injuries to his left leg from the rear tyre of the bus. The police recorded the statement of Budhi Ram in the hospital under Section 154 Cr.P.C. wherein he had categorically stated that the accident had occurred on account of rash or negligent driving of the driver, who, later on, had taken the injured to IGMC. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, an FIR was registered. After taking into consideration the material on record, the MACT awarded the compensation to the petitioners.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioners have discharged their onus to prove rash and negligent act on the part of the driver Baldev Ram. “It is also well known that strangers rarely come forward to participate in police inquiry and Court proceedings”, it said.

The plea with respect to the validity of the licence was held to be misconceived as the driver and owner had also discharged their onus to prove that the bus was being driven by a person having a valid driving licence.

One of the contentions raised before the Bench was that because the deceased had to retire after 3-4 years on attaining the age of 58 years, therefore, the claimants were not entitled for compensation based on last pay drawn by deceased and therefore, instead of multiplier of 11 for loss of income, multiplier of 4 was to be applied based on remaining years of job. On this aspect, the Bench said, “...plea of learned counsel for appellant is not acceptable. Thus irrespective of retirement after some years, multiplier of 11 is only to be applied to the deceased falling in the age group of 55-60 years.”

It was further observed that for loss of income/contribution to the dependent legal heirs, dependency is the main criterion for awarding compensation under MV Act. But loss of consortium has nothing to do with dependency. “The “loss of contribution on account of dependency” and “loss of consortium being family members/relatives” are entirely two different concepts/phenomenons. The dependent legal heirs, apart from compensation under other heads, shall also be entitled for loss of consortium, whereas other family members who are not dependent-legal heirs of the deceased, though, shall not be entitled for compensation but shall be entitled for loss of consortium which is awarded for personal loss of love and affection, guidance and psychological, emotional losses etc.”, it said.

As per the Bench, the claimants 1 and 6 could only be considered as dependent legal heirs, whereas others, who are married daughters, for want of any material on record, were not be considered as dependent legal heirs and, therefore, amount of compensation other than loss of consortium would not be payable to non-dependent claimants/respondents 2 to 5, but only to claimants/respondents No.1 and 6 who are wife and son of deceased. It was further held that all the claimants, including respondents 1 and 6, would be entitled to separate loss of consortium at the rate of Rs 40,000 each.

Thus, the Bench modified the award by granting compensation of Rs 13,28,220. The Bench concluded the matter by directing the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of compensation along with interest.

Cause Title: Oriental Insurance Com.Ltd. v. Satya Devi and others (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:14619-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate G.C. Gupta, Advocates Meera Devi, Deepak Gupta

Respondent: Advocates Ashir Kaith, Hamender Singh Chandel, P.P. Chauhan,

Click here to read/download Order