Consortium is payable individually to each eligible claimant in a fatal accident claim.

The claimants, the deceased’s mother, father, three sisters and grandmother, sought compensation for the death of 21-year-old Kanhaiya Ghankhar in a motorcycle accident on 18 October 2019.

The Claims Tribunal awarded ₹16,89,800, assessing his monthly income at ₹8,000, adding 40% for future prospects, deducting one-third for personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 18; it also exonerated the insurer for breach of the driving-licence condition.

The claimants appealed for enhancement, including on income and conventional heads, and sought a pay-and-recover direction. The vehicle owner filed a cross-appeal alleging contributory negligence and challenging the insurer’s exoneration.

1. Whether the deceased’s monthly income should be reassessed and the compensation enhanced, including under the conventional heads.

2. Whether the deceased was contributorily negligent in causing the accident.

3. Whether the insurer’s exoneration for breach of the driving-licence condition warranted interference, including by a pay-and-recover direction.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

In calculating fatal-accident compensation, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, supplies the applicable multiplier and deduction principles; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, governs future prospects and conventional heads; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 1309, informs the award of consortium.

The Court assessed income by reference to the Chhattisgarh minimum-wage notification for unskilled labour.

It also considered whether the driver held a valid and effective licence for the offending vehicle and whether the record established contributory negligence.

The claimants produced no documentary proof of the pleaded dairy-business income of ₹42,000 per month. The Court therefore treated the deceased as an unskilled labourer but substituted the applicable minimum wage of ₹8,600 for the Tribunal’s ₹8,000 assessment.

It otherwise upheld the 40% future-prospects addition, one-third deduction and multiplier of 18, having regard to the deceased’s age, work and dependants.

Applying the cited authorities, it recalculated consortium at ₹40,000 for each of the six claimants and fixed loss of estate and funeral expenses at ₹15,000 each.

The charge-sheet and unrebutted claimant evidence attributed the accident to the offending driver, who did not testify; the Court found insufficient material to establish contributory negligence by the deceased.

It found that the driver held an LMV licence, not a valid and effective licence for the two-wheeler, and rejected the owner’s reliance on Smt. Parwati Tandan because the circumstances differed.

The Court did not alter the Tribunal’s remaining award conditions.

It dismissed the owner’s cross-appeal and left the remaining award conditions intact.