Entitlement of each surviving legal representative to separate compensation under the head of loss of consortium.

On June 18, 1997, the deceased, Nanabhai, was waiting at a bus stand when a truck (HR-35-2241) driven by Opponent No. 1 struck the rear of a tempo (DL-1-LB-7494) driven by Opponent No. 4, both allegedly driven at excessive speeds.

The collision caused the tempo to overturn, trapping and fatally injuring Nanabhai.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Mahisagar at Lunawada, awarded Rs. 3,22,000/- with 9% interest on September 17, 2019.

During the proceedings, two claimants died and were deleted, leaving six surviving legal representatives.

The appellants challenged the award, seeking enhancement specifically under conventional heads and consortium.

1. Whether the compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium was adequate given the number of surviving dependents

2. Whether the amounts awarded for funeral expenses and loss of estate required enhancement in light of established precedents

The Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), which standardized amounts for conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium) and provided for periodic inflationary adjustments.

The expansion of the "consortium" concept from Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018), which established that "consortium" encompasses spousal, parental, and filial consortium, entitling each legal dependent to a separate award under this head.

The Court observed that the Tribunal erred by awarding a lump sum of only Rs. 40,000/- for consortium despite the presence of six surviving claimants (widow, four daughters, and one son).

Following the Magma General precedent, the Court held that each of the six claimants is entitled to individual consortium and calculated parental and spousal consortium at Rs. 48,400/- per person (reflecting the base rate of Rs. 40,000 plus adjustments), totaling Rs. 2,90,400/-.

Regarding "Loss of Estate" and "Funeral Expenses," the Court found the Tribunal’s award "meagre" and inconsistent with the mandates of Pranay Sethi, subsequently enhancing both figures to Rs. 18,150/- each.

The findings on negligence and loss of dependency (Rs. 2,52,000/-) remained undisturbed.

The Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 5,58,700/-, entitling appellants to an additional amount of Rs. 2,36,700/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Companies were directed to deposit the additional amount within six weeks, apportioned according to the liability ratio determined by the Tribunal.