The Supreme Court has held that consortium, including spousal and parental consortium, is an important and indispensable head of compensation in motor accident claim cases to ensure a just award.

The Court was hearing an appeal against the judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, which had enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal from ₹8,44,000 to ₹11,00,672. Although notice was issued on the limited aspect of parental consortium, the Supreme Court considered the issue comprehensively with respect to both spousal and parental consortium.

A Bench of Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed: “when all such persons covered within the expression ‘legal representative’ are entitled to maintain the compensation petition and seek compensation for loss of life of the victim of a motor accident, by virtue of that very principle and in view of the concept of consortium, it is one of the heads of compensation which becomes payable in motor accident claim cases.

Further, while referring to National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017), in which the Apex Court had dealt with the different heads under which compensation is to be awarded to the victim who had died in a motor accident, the Bench added that “consortium in different categories as above is an important and indispensable head to award accident claim compensation to make the compensation amount to be just compensation.”

Advocate Vamsikrishna Thota appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Divyansh Mishra appeared for the respondents.

Background

The claim arose from a motor accident in which a pedestrian was hit by a car allegedly driven rashly and negligently. He later succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment. His wife and three children filed a claim petition seeking compensation for his death.

The Tribunal assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹7,000 and awarded ₹8,44,000 with interest. The High Court partly allowed the claimants’ appeal and enhanced the compensation to ₹11,00,672, but awarded a collective amount under conventional heads and did not separately grant parental consortium to the children.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants questioned the assessment of income and also contended that the compensation awarded towards parental consortium was not in accordance with law.

Court’s Observations

The Court first considered the appellants’ contention that the deceased’s income should have been assessed at ₹9,000 per month. It noted that the Tribunal had relied on the testimony of the Director of the deceased’s employer, who stated that the deceased was earning ₹7,000 per month.

The Court observed: “However, when the Tribunal relied on the testimony of the Director of the deceased’s employer-PW3 who stated that the salary of the deceased was Rs.7,000/- p.m., therefore, Rs.84,000/- annually, the Tribunal committed no mistake.”

The Court referred to Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2007), National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender (2020), and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987) to explain that legal representatives of a deceased motor accident victim can maintain a claim for compensation.

Referring to the position in Birender, the Court noted: “The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependent on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression “legal representative” of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the legal representative concerned.”

The Court traced the development of law on consortium through Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013), National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017), and Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram (2018).

The Court explained: “The ‘spousal consortium’ normally refers to the rights pertaining to relationship of a husband and wife which allow compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of company, society, cooperation, affection and aid of the other in the conjugal relations. The consortium amount which is granted to the child is called ‘parental consortium’ to be paid on the premature death of a parent.”

It further noted that parental consortium compensates children for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training that would have been available had the parent been alive.

Applying the law to the case, the Court held that the wife was entitled to spousal consortium and the three children were entitled to parental consortium. It noted that the children were between 18 and 21 years of age and that their dependency on the deceased was never in dispute.

The Court held: “Appellant Nos. 2 to 4, therefore, ought to have been considered as legal representatives and dependants of the deceased to be entitled to parental consortium.”

The Court found that the Tribunal had committed a manifest error by granting only ₹5,000 to the wife and nothing towards parental consortium. It also held that the High Court missed its legal duty by awarding only a collective amount under conventional heads.

The Court held that each claimant was entitled to ₹40,000 under consortium, with a 10% increase at three-year intervals as recognised in Pranay Sethi. On that basis, each appellant was held entitled to ₹48,400 under the head of consortium.

The Court maintained the loss of dependency awarded by the High Court, enhanced funeral expenses and loss of estate to ₹15,000 each, and recalculated the total compensation at ₹12,47,272.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s award and enhanced the total compensation to ₹12,47,272. It directed the Insurance Company to deposit the additional amount of ₹1,46,600 with interest at 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till realisation within six weeks.

Upon deposit, the Tribunal was directed to release the amount to the claimants in equal proportion after verification, by directly crediting it into their respective bank accounts. The appeal was allowed in these terms.

Cause Title: Sameem Begum and Others v. K. Venkat Swamy and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 864)

Appearances

Appellants: Advocates Vamsikrishna Thota, T. Vishwarupa Chary and Shaurya Mishra, with Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR

Respondents: Advocate Divyansh Mishra, with Gopal Singh, AOR

Click here to read/download Judgment

Tags: