Loss of consortium is awardable to all legal heirs, including major married children.

Late Nejamuddin Ansari, aged approximately 40 years, died in a motor vehicle accident on 6 May 2023 involving truck No. CG-15/DC-4153.

His wife and six children filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹15,08,940, assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹9,100 as an unskilled labourer, adding 25% towards future prospects, deducting one-third towards personal expenses, and applying a multiplier of 15.

The Tribunal treated only the wife and two unmarried children as dependants and did not treat the four major and married children as dependants.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement, principally challenging the assessment of income and the amounts granted under conventional heads.

Whether the deceased’s monthly income ought to have been assessed at ₹9,960 instead of ₹9,100 on the basis of the applicable Chhattisgarh minimum-wages notification?

Whether the Tribunal correctly determined the number of dependants, the deduction for personal expenses, future prospects, and the multiplier?

Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses required enhancement?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in reviewing the adequacy of compensation.

It applied the principles in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, concerning deductions for personal expenses and selection of the appropriate multiplier; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, concerning future prospects and standardized conventional heads; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 1306, concerning consortium payable to eligible family members.

For a self-employed deceased aged 40 years, a 25% addition towards future prospects, one-third deduction towards personal expenses where there are three dependants, and multiplier 15 were treated as applicable.

The Court also relied on the applicable Chhattisgarh minimum-wages notification to assess income at ₹9,960 per month for an unskilled labourer.

The Court rejected the claim that the deceased earned ₹20,000 per month because the claimants produced no documentary evidence supporting that amount.

However, it held that the Tribunal had erred in using the lower figure of ₹9,100 and adopted ₹9,960 per month in accordance with the relevant minimum-wages notification.

The Tribunal’s finding that only the wife and two unmarried children were dependants was affirmed, since the remaining four children were major and married; consequently, the one-third deduction and multiplier of 15 were maintained.

The Court also upheld the 25% addition for future prospects, given the deceased’s age and self-employed status.

It found the consortium award inadequate and recalculated consortium at ₹48,000 for each of the seven claimants, totalling ₹3,36,000, while retaining ₹18,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

On recalculation, the loss of dependency was enhanced from ₹13,65,000 to ₹14,94,000, and the total compensation was computed at ₹18,66,000.

The compensation was enhanced from ₹15,08,940 to ₹18,66,000, resulting in an additional amount of ₹3,57,060 payable to the appellants.

The enhanced amount was directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization.

The remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were left undisturbed.

The Registry was directed to communicate the enhanced amount to the claimants in Hindi, with assistance from paralegal workers where necessary.