Each legal representative is entitled to separate consortium compensation in a fatal motor accident claim.

On 21 February 2019, Rajendraprasad Keshavprasad Purohit was travelling in an Eeco car when its tyre burst and the vehicle overturned. He sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died. His widow and two sons filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patan.

The Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded ₹6,30,028 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The claimants appealed, contending that the deceased’s agricultural income and income from performing religious rituals had not been properly assessed, that future prospects were not added, and that the amounts under conventional heads were inadequate. The Insurance Company opposed the appeal, arguing that the alleged income was not proved and that the Tribunal had already awarded just compensation.

Whether the Tribunal had erred in assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹10,000 and in not granting enhancement towards future prospects and loss of dependency.

Whether the compensation awarded under funeral expenses and loss of estate required enhancement in accordance with National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.

Whether the widow and two sons were each entitled to compensation under the head of loss of consortium in accordance with Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram.

The Court applied the principles governing just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including assessment of proven income and loss of dependency in a fatal motor-accident claim.

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for the prescribed amounts under conventional heads, enhancing funeral expenses and loss of estate from ₹15,000 to ₹18,150 each.

It further relied on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, for the principle that each eligible claimant may receive consortium, including spousal and filial consortium; accordingly, consortium was calculated at ₹48,400 per claimant.

The Court also accepted the relevance of the prevailing minimum wage for a skilled worker as a benchmark where actual income was not proved.

The Court held that the revenue record merely established that the deceased owned agricultural land measuring 2-46-60 hectares and did not prove the income derived from agriculture or religious rituals.

Since the claimants produced no reliable evidence of actual earnings, the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹10,000 per month—already higher than the applicable minimum wage of ₹8,560 per month for a skilled worker—was not erroneous or inadequate. The Court therefore declined to interfere with the loss-of-dependency calculation.

However, applying Pranay Sethi, it enhanced funeral expenses and loss of estate to ₹18,150 each, and, applying Magma General Insurance, awarded consortium of ₹48,400 each to the widow and the two sons, totalling ₹1,45,200. The total compensation was consequently recalculated at ₹7,41,528.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional compensation with the Tribunal within six weeks of receiving the order. The Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount with interest after due verification and deduction of any deficit court fee.

No order as to costs was made.