Consortium compensation must be excluded for a claimant who dies during the proceedings.

On 15 November 2017, Mahantesh, aged about 18, was riding as a pillion passenger on a motorcycle when it collided with a NWKRTC bus; he died at the scene.

His mother and sister sought compensation, alleging that the bus driver’s rash and negligent driving caused the accident.

NWKRTC denied negligence and alleged that the motorcycle rider contributed to the accident.

The Tribunal awarded ₹16,59,800, including compensation for loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and consortium to both claimants.

NWKRTC appealed against liability and the award; the mother separately appealed seeking enhancement.

The sister died while the claim petition was pending.

The appeals were brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for appeals from awards of a Claims Tribunal.

The Court applied the principle that negligence must be assessed on the evidence available; absent cogent evidence establishing the motorcycle rider’s contribution, contributory negligence should not be attributed to that rider.

On compensation, the Court relied on National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for the 10% escalation applied to consortium and the conventional heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate.

It also maintained the 50% deduction for the deceased’s personal expenses because he was a bachelor.

The Court upheld liability against NWKRTC because the objections did not initially raise a specific case of negligence by the motorcycle rider, and the evidence did not establish that the rider contributed to the accident.

Although the police charge sheet had not been challenged and the NWKRTC witness acknowledged a curve at the scene, the Court found no cogent evidence supporting contributory negligence.

On compensation, the sister had died during the Tribunal proceedings and was therefore not entitled to consortium; the mother alone was awarded ₹44,000 under that head, reflecting the 10% escalation.

The Court retained the loss-of-dependency award and enhanced funeral expenses and loss of estate by 10%, bringing those two heads to ₹33,000 in total.

It allowed both appeals in part and modified the Tribunal’s award, reducing the total compensation from ₹16,59,800 to ₹16,26,800.

The amount in deposit was to be transmitted to the Tribunal, with any excess refunded to the insurer upon proper identification.