Loss of consortium must be awarded separately to each eligible claimant in fatal motor accident claims.

On 30 June 1994, deceased Vithalbhai Parmar was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter from Sinhjiwada to Matar. The scooter, driven by his friend Babarbhai, was allegedly hit by a truck driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1. Both the scooter driver and the deceased died at the spot. The deceased’s legal representatives filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 911 of 1994 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nadiad, claiming ₹20,00,000 as compensation

The Tribunal awarded ₹7,53,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization. The claimants challenged the award before the Gujarat High Court, contending that the deceased’s income, future prospects, dependency, and conventional heads of compensation had not been properly assessed.

1. Whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the deceased’s income, future prospects, dependency, and loss of dependency for determining just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

2. Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced amounts under loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate in accordance with the applicable Supreme Court precedents?

3. What enhanced compensation and consequential directions should be granted to the claimants?

The Court applied the principle that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation requiring an award of “just and fair compensation,” assessed liberally, reasonably, and equitably rather than narrowly.

For computation of loss of dependency, the Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, applying a 50% addition towards future prospects and awarding standardized amounts for loss of estate and funeral expenses. The Court also relied on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, concerning compensation for loss of consortium to eligible dependants. The multiplier method was applied by deducting one-fourth of the income towards the deceased’s personal expenses and using a multiplier of 15.

The High Court found that the Tribunal had not properly assessed the deceased’s monthly income and therefore recalculated the loss of dependency. Taking the monthly income at ₹3,624, the Court added 50% towards future prospects, resulting in ₹5,436 per month. After deducting one-fourth towards personal expenses, the monthly contribution to the family was assessed at ₹4,077. Applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency was calculated at ₹7,33,860.

Applying the principles in Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur, the Court further awarded ₹18,150 each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and ₹48,400 per consortium award; the tabulated calculation applied consortium compensation of ₹2,42,000. The total compensation was thus recalculated at ₹10,12,160, from which the Tribunal’s award of ₹7,53,000 was deducted, leaving an enhancement of ₹2,59,160.

Since ₹7,53,000 had already been awarded by the Tribunal, the additional amount payable was ₹2,59,160. Respondent No. 2, United India Insurance Company, was directed to deposit the enhanced amount before the concerned Tribunal within eight weeks. The Tribunal was directed to disburse the entire awarded amount, including accrued interest and amounts held in fixed deposits, after verification and in accordance with law, subject to deduction of applicable court fees.