While granting enhanced compensation to the tune of over Rs 20 lakh to the family members of a man who died in a motor accident, the Supreme Court has reiterated that filial consortium can also be granted to the children for having lost the company of their father.

The appellants approached the Apex Court seeking an enhancement of the compensation.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “Though, the High Court had adopted the principle in Pranay Sethi loss of consortium was granted only to the wife. This Court in New India Assurance Company v. Somwati and Ors. held that not only spousal consortium, filial consortium can also be granted to the children for having lost the company of their father.”

Advocate Yadunandan Bansal represented the Appellant, while Advocate Anand Vardhan Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case emanated from an accident, wherein a tractor driven rashly and negligently mowed down a motorcycle, leaving a family without its breadwinner. The widow and three children of the deceased approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal computed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs 4,000 and awarded a compensation of Rs 6,16,000 with interest. Before the High Court, an appeal was filed in which modifications were made, enhancing the compensation to Rs 8,26,000 based on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017). The appellant claimants approached the Court seeking further enhancement of the compensation.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the deceased was said to have been running a business of erecting tents for events and carrying out decoration work therein. There were also witnesses proffered to depose that they had been the clients of the deceased. The Bench noted that no documentary proof was produced to substantiate the claim and despite the deceased having obtained a PAN card, there was no Income Tax Return filed.

“However, the issuance of a PAN card in the name of the deceased and the oral evidence led before the Tribunal would persuade us to assume that the deceased had a monthly income more than that of a Coolie”, it added.

Considering that the claim before the Tribunal, which was not substantiated, was of Rs.15,000 per month, the Bench held that the monthly income of the deceased could be safely determined to be Rs.10,000. The Bench also reaffirmed the view that filial consortium can be granted to the children.

Thus, the Bench awarded a total compensation of Rs 20,40,000, which included the loss of income, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “Further, if the children of the deceased have attained majority, there is no need to deposit the amount in fixed deposit as directed by the Tribunal.”

Cause Title: Smt. Neelam and Ors. v. Ganga Singh and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 512)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Yadunandan Bansal, Anand Gour, Anita Chahar, AOR Ravi Panwar

Respondent: Advocates Anand Vardhan Sharma, Vinod Kant Vasudev, Amit Tyagi, Ravi Ketan Bhardwaj, Abhay Tyagi, Umesh Chauhan, AOR Kailash Prashad Pandey

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Sanjay KumarJustice K. Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.