Karnataka High Court awards consortium compensation to siblings of an unmarried accident victim, despite their non-dependency

Sharada, an unmarried woman aged approximately 62, died in a car accident on 8 May 2019.

Her brothers claimed that she had been earning ₹25,000 per month from agricultural work and that they depended on her income.

The Tribunal awarded ₹6,07,000, including compensation for loss of dependency, but deducted 50% of her income for personal expenses and awarded no consortium.

One of the three original claimants died while the claim petition was pending; the surviving brothers appealed, seeking enhancement.

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deducting 50% of the deceased’s income towards personal and living expenses, given the brothers’ asserted dependency.

2. Whether the deceased’s legal representatives were entitled to consortium, and whether the consortium amount attributable to a claimant who died during the proceedings remained payable.

3. Whether the compensation required enhancement, including an increase in consortium for the time elapsed since Pranay Sethi.

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender, (2020) 11 SCC 356, a person’s status as a legal representative is not confined to being a spouse, child, or parent; dependency and entitlement to loss-of-dependency compensation depend on the evidence in the particular case, and partial dependency may be relevant.

Under Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Court treated legal representatives as entitled to ₹40,000 each under consortium.

The Court also referred to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi concerning enhancement of conventional heads, holding that no 10% consortium enhancement applied on the facts of this case.

The Court declined to alter the 50% deduction because the surviving brothers were mature adults, the deceased was herself over 60, and the evidence did not establish that the brothers’ earnings were insufficient or that they were financially dependent on her; the asserted total dependency was therefore not proved.

However, following its reading of Magma General Insurance, the Court awarded ₹40,000 in consortium to each of the three claimants, including the brother who died during the proceedings.

It reasoned that entitlement was assessed by reference to the position at the date of the accident and directed that the deceased claimant’s amount be distributed between the surviving brothers.

It did not apply a 10% increase to consortium.

The Tribunal’s award was modified by adding ₹1,20,000 for consortium, bringing total compensation from ₹6,07,000 to ₹7,27,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within six weeks of receiving the certified judgment.