Each widow, child, and parent of a deceased victim is entitled to loss-of-consortium compensation.

On 23 May 2012, Vasantbhai Fatehsinh Vasava was travelling in a Maruti Van when a truck allegedly driven rashly and negligently collided with the van near Village Ranikund, causing injuries that resulted in his death.

His dependants included his second wife, one child, both parents, and, according to the claimants, his first wife and two children.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded ₹28,78,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

The claimants filed the appeal challenging the award only on the issue of quantum, particularly the compensation awarded for loss of consortium.

The appeal had been filed after a delay of 2,074 days, which had been condoned without awarding interest for that period.

Whether the deceased’s two widows, children, and parents were each entitled to compensation under the head of loss of consortium.

Whether interest was payable on the additional compensation for the period of 2,074 days’ delay in filing the appeal.

Whether, in a case of composite negligence with liability apportioned 70:30, the truck’s insurer could be directed to pay the entire compensation initially, with liberty to recover 30% from the owner of the Maruti Van.

The Court relied on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, that compensation for loss of consortium is payable not only to the spouse but also to children and parents as spousal, parental, and filial consortium.

Applying that principle, each eligible widow, child, and parent was entitled to ₹48,400 under the head of loss of consortium.

The Court also applied the procedural principle that where interest on an enhanced award is excluded for the period of delay in filing the appeal, no interest is payable on the additional compensation for that delayed period.

Under the principle governing composite negligence, the claimant may recover the entire award from one liable insurer, leaving that insurer at liberty to recover the other tortfeasor’s apportioned share.

The Court found it undisputed that appellant no. 1 and respondent no. 5 were the deceased’s widows, appellant no. 2 and respondent nos. 6 and 7 were his children, and appellant nos. 3 and 4 were his parents.

Relying on Nanu Ram, it held that all seven persons were entitled to consortium compensation.

The Court therefore fixed compensation of ₹48,400 for each of appellant nos. 1 to 4 and respondent nos. 5 to 7, while leaving the Tribunal’s computation under the other heads undisturbed because those components had not been challenged.

Since the appeal had been delayed by 2,074 days, the additional compensation was directed to carry no interest for that period.

As the accident involved composite negligence and liability had already been apportioned at 70:30 between the truck and the Maruti Van, the truck’s insurer was directed to satisfy the entire award first, subject to recovery of 30% from the owner of the Maruti Van.

The truck’s insurer was directed to deposit and pay the entire enhanced award, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, excluding interest for the 2,074-day delay, within six weeks.

The insurer was granted liberty to recover 30% of the amount from the owner of the Maruti Van through execution proceedings.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount after due verification and deduction of any deficit court fee.

No order as to costs was made.