Each child is independently entitled to compensation for loss of parental consortium.

Paltu Ram Sahu, aged about 46, died in a road accident on 11 August 2019 when a truck driven by respondent Diwakar Jain struck him.

His wife and three daughters sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹12,92,672 and directed the insurer to pay the compensation and recover it from the owner and driver because the truck lacked a valid permit.

The claimants appealed for enhancement; the insurer appealed against the award and the pay-and-recover direction.

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement, including on the grounds of the deceased’s income and consortium for the claimants.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s pay-and-recover direction was sustainable despite the absence of a valid permit.

Under Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claimant may seek compensation for death in a motor accident and appeal the Tribunal’s award.

The Court applied Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 in assessing dependency compensation, including the multiplier, personal-expense deduction and future prospects.

It relied on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 for consortium, recognising separate parental-consortium compensation for each child.

On breach of policy conditions, it applied National Insurance Co. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 and Amrit Paul Singh v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 7 SCC 558 in upholding the insurer’s obligation to pay the claimants first and recover the amount from the owner and driver.

The Tribunal’s monthly income assessment of ₹7,800 was considered too low.

In the absence of evidence establishing the claimed earnings or nature of employment, the Court assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹8,400, treating him as an unskilled labourer by reference to applicable minimum-wage notifications.

It retained the Tribunal’s 25% addition for future prospects, one-fourth deduction for personal expenses and multiplier of 13, resulting in dependency compensation of ₹12,28,500.

It also awarded ₹44,000 consortium to each of the wife and three daughters, rather than the lower joint amount allowed for the daughters, bringing total compensation to ₹14,37,500.

Although the absence of a valid permit established a policy breach, the Court found no basis to disturb the pay-and-recover direction, particularly since the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident.

Compensation was enhanced from ₹12,92,672 to ₹14,37,500, entitling the claimants to an additional ₹1,44,828, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application until realisation.

The Tribunal’s pay-and-recover direction and the remaining terms of the award were left undisturbed.