Each claimant is entitled to separate compensation for loss of consortium.

In brief

The question

Whether the cross-objection, filed within a month of service of notice of the appeal, was timely under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The court held

The High Court allowed the cross-objection in part and enhanced compensation by ₹3,40,600, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation.

It also directed

It directed the insurer to deposit the compensation within eight weeks and permitted it to recover the amount from the vehicle owner; the remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were left undisturbed.

01Facts

The deceased, aged 53, died from injuries sustained in a 13 February 2016 collision between his motorcycle and an autorickshaw. His wife and two children brought a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

pp. 5–10

The Tribunal awarded ₹7,74,000 with interest at 9% per annum, assessed monthly income at ₹8,000, and directed the insurer to pay and recover from the vehicle owner.

pp. 5–10

The claimants filed this cross-objection after receiving notice of the insurer’s appeal on 9 April 2025; they filed it on 16 April 2025.

p. 4

02Issues

i.Whether the cross-objection, filed within a month of service of notice of the appeal, was timely under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

pp. 3–4

ii.Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation should be enhanced by revising the deceased’s income, adding future prospects, and recalculating consortium and other conventional heads.

pp. 11–13

iii.Whether the Tribunal’s award of interest at 9% per annum should be reduced.

pp. 11–12, 14–16

03Law Applied

Order XLI Rule 22 CPC permits a respondent to file a cross-objection within one month of service of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, subject to further time allowed by the appellate court.

pp. 3–4

Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation is assessed by applying the principles in Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation on deductions and multiplier, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi on future prospects and conventional heads.

pp. 9–12

For a deceased aged 50–60 who was self-employed or in business, the court applied a 10% addition for future prospects; consortium was assessed at ₹40,000 for each claimant, with 30% escalation applied to conventional heads.

pp. 12–13

The court also relied on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Malyadri M. & Others and Bimal Gogai v. Managing Director, BMTC in considering the reasonableness of 9% interest.

pp. 14–16

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 Section 166

04Reasoning

The cross-objection was filed seven days after the claimants received notice of the appeal, and therefore fell within Rule 22’s one-month period despite the insurer’s appeal having been filed in 2019.

p. 4

For compensation, the court adopted the KSLSA notional income of ₹9,500 per month for 2016, added 10% future prospects, and retained the Tribunal’s one-third deduction and multiplier of 11. This produced loss of dependency of ₹9,19,600.

p. 12

It awarded consortium of ₹40,000 to each of the three claimants and applied 30% escalation to the conventional heads, bringing total compensation to ₹11,14,600—an enhancement of ₹3,40,600.

pp. 12–14

The court rejected the insurer’s request to reduce interest, finding 9% per annum appropriate in light of the cited authorities and the circumstances of the case.

pp. 14–16

05Holding

The High Court allowed the cross-objection in part and enhanced compensation by ₹3,40,600, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation.

p. 17

pp. 17–18

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF