Dependent siblings, like parents, are entitled to separate consortium compensation in fatal motor accident claims.

Rakesh, aged 26 years, died in a motor-vehicular accident on 28.08.2021.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, awarded ₹15,87,360 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, under the heads of loss of dependency, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The claimants, appellant No.1 being the deceased’s mother and appellant No.2 being his brother, preferred an appeal seeking enhancement on the ground that no compensation had been awarded towards loss of consortium, despite the Tribunal recording that they were dependent upon the deceased.

Whether the deceased’s mother and dependent brother were entitled to compensation under the head of loss of consortium?

Whether each eligible claimant was entitled to a separate amount of ₹48,400 towards consortium, considering the accident occurred on 28.08.2021?

Whether the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement accordingly?

The Court applied the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, which recognized loss of consortium as a conventional head of compensation and fixed the base amount at ₹40,000, subject to a 10% enhancement every three years.

Relying on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Court held that consortium includes spousal, parental and filial consortium, and may be awarded to eligible family members, including siblings in appropriate cases.

The principles were reaffirmed with respect to separate entitlement of eligible dependants in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, and Rajwati @ Rajjo v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699.

The Court also relied on Sadhana Tomar v. Ashok Kushwaha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554, for the proposition that “legal representative” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, receives a broad interpretation and is not confined to the spouse, parents and children of the deceased; persons who establish loss of dependency may maintain a compensation claim.

The Tribunal had awarded compensation under other conventional heads but had entirely omitted consideration of consortium.

Since the deceased’s mother and brother had been found to be dependent upon him, they were persons who had suffered loss of the deceased’s care, companionship, guidance and affection.

Applying Magma General Insurance and Sadhana Tomar, the Court held that the brother’s relationship as a sibling did not, by itself, disentitle him from consortium where dependency and loss were established.

As the accident occurred on 28.08.2021, the base amount of ₹40,000 under Pranay Sethi was subject to two successive 10% triennial enhancements, resulting in ₹48,400 per eligible claimant.

The appeal was allowed to the extent that appellant No.1, the deceased’s mother, and appellant No.2, his dependent brother, were each held entitled to ₹48,400 towards loss of consortium.

An additional amount of ₹96,800 was therefore awarded, enhancing the total compensation from ₹15,87,360 to ₹16,84,160.

The enhanced amount was directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The respondents were held jointly and severally liable, with the insurer’s obligation to indemnify the insured remaining as determined by the Tribunal.