Each eligible family member is entitled to consortium, but not separate compensation for loss of love and affection.

On 28 November 2016, Ashan Ali was travelling as a passenger in tourist bus No. AS-15/C-6269 from Tinsukia towards Barpeta when the bus met with an accident at Bezkuchi on National Highway No. 31 due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver. Ashan Ali sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot

His wife, five children and mother filed a motor accident compensation claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta, which awarded Rs. 11,44,000 with interest at 9% per annum against the insurer

The Oriental Insurance Company appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the multiplier, the addition of 25% towards future prospects, the award of interest on future prospects, and the additional award for loss of love and affection

The claimants, although they filed no cross-objection, sought recognition of separate consortium claims for the wife, children and mother

1. Whether the Tribunal correctly applied the multiplier of 13, or whether a multiplier of 11 was required on the basis that the deceased was above 50 years of age?

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in adding 25% of the deceased’s income towards future prospects?

3. Whether interest could be awarded on the amount attributable to future prospects?

4. Whether the claimants were entitled to separate compensation for spousal, parental and filial consortium, and whether a corresponding enhancement could be granted in the absence of a cross-objection?

5. What was the just compensation payable to the claimants?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 governing appeals against awards of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

Under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the multiplier for the age group of 46–50 years is 13, while that for 51–55 years is 11

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, future prospects may generally be added at prescribed rates depending on age, including 25% for persons between 40 and 50 years; the Court also referred to the principle that no addition is ordinarily made where the deceased is above 50 years

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram recognises spousal, parental and filial consortium as distinct forms of loss of consortium, ordinarily compensable at Rs. 40,000 per eligible claimant, subject to applicable principles under Pranay Sethi

Under Pannalal v. State of Bombay, an appellate court may grant relief to a party entitled to it even without a cross-objection by exercising powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure

The Court rejected the insurer’s challenge to the multiplier. The deceased’s educational certificate showed that he was 16 years and 10 months old on 1 March 1983, establishing his date of birth as 1 May 1966. On 28 November 2016, he was therefore 50 years, 6 months and 27 days old and had not attained 51 years. Consequently, he fell within the 46–50 age bracket for purposes of the Sarla Verma multiplier, making multiplier 13 appropriate

However, the Court held that the Tribunal erred in adding 25% towards future prospects because the deceased was more than 50 years old on the date of death. The future-prospects addition was therefore excluded

The Court further held that the wife, five children and mother were each entitled to consortium—spousal consortium for the wife, parental consortium for the children and filial consortium for the mother—at Rs. 40,000 each. At the same time, a separate award for loss of love and affection was impermissible because the consortium compensation covered the relevant non-pecuniary loss

Although the claimants had not filed a cross-objection, the Court invoked Order XLI Rule 33 CPC, relying on Pannalal, to award the consortium amounts necessary to arrive at just compensation

The compensation was recalculated on a monthly income of Rs. 6,500, after deducting one-fifth towards personal expenses. The annual multiplicand was Rs. 62,400, which, multiplied by 13, produced Rs. 8,11,200 for loss of dependency. Adding Rs. 2,80,000 towards consortium, Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate and Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses resulted in total compensation of Rs. 11,21,200

It nevertheless enhanced/structured the consortium award at Rs. 40,000 for each of the seven claimants under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC. The just compensation was fixed at Rs. 11,21,200, carrying interest at 9% per annum

Since 75% of the original award had already been deposited pursuant to the stay order, the insurer was directed to deposit the remaining outstanding amount before the High Court Registry within four weeks, after which it was to be disbursed to the claimants upon verification