Each dependent claimant is individually entitled to compensation for loss of consortium.

Chheduram died from injuries sustained in a motorcycle collision on 30 June 2020. His wife and two children claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Claims Tribunal awarded ₹13,53,800. The claimants appealed under Section 173 seeking enhancement, contending that the deceased’s income was assessed too low and that each claimant was entitled to separate consortium. The insurer filed a cross-objection, disputing the deceased’s age and the compensation awarded

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s age and income for calculating compensation

2. Whether each dependent claimant was entitled to a separate award for loss of consortium

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for an appeal against a Claims Tribunal’s award, while Section 166 governs the underlying claim for compensation.

Applying Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the Court upheld the use of a one-third deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 14; under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, it upheld the 25% addition for future prospects and the conventional heads of compensation

Under Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, each dependent claimant may receive separate compensation for spousal or parental consortium.

The Court also relied on Saroj v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. for the principle that an Aadhaar card is not authoritative proof of a person’s age or date of birth

The Court rejected the insurer’s age argument because the insurer had neither pleaded nor proved the age stated in the Aadhaar card. The Tribunal had relied on the autopsy application and report, which recorded the deceased’s age as 42, consistent with the claim application; the Court therefore found no basis to disturb that assessment

It also upheld the Tribunal’s income assessment of ₹9,120 per month, based on minimum wages, because the claimants produced no cogent and reliable evidence supporting the alleged higher income

The Court otherwise left the dependency calculation and conventional awards unchanged, but held that consortium was payable separately to the wife and each of the two children. At ₹44,000 per claimant, the correct consortium total was ₹1,32,000, an increase of ₹88,000 over the amount awarded

It enhanced the total compensation from ₹13,53,800 to ₹14,41,800, awarding an additional ₹88,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date the claim application was filed until realization. The remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were left undisturbed