Major children are entitled to parental consortium regardless of their age, dependency, or separate residence.

The appellants, being the widow and two major sons of the deceased (Devabhai Mepabhai Bhuva), filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, following a fatal motor accident

The deceased was 50 years old and self-employed in agriculture and cattle rearing

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Amreli, awarded Rs. 2,19,680 with 9% interest, determining the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 2,400 based on minimum wages

The Tribunal deducted 20% of the total compensation on account of the deceased's contributory negligence

The appellants moved the High Court for enhancement, arguing that the Tribunal failed to consider future prospects and adequate compensation under conventional heads

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to award future prospects for a self-employed deceased aged 50 years

2. Whether major sons residing separately from the deceased are entitled to parental consortium under the Act

3. Whether the amounts awarded under conventional heads (Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses, and Consortium) require upward revision in light of current precedents

The court primarily applied Section 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the adjudication of "just compensation"

It relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) to mandate a 25% addition for future prospects for self-employed individuals aged 40–50 and to establish standardized amounts for conventional heads with a 10% incremental rise every three years

The court followed Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corp. (2009) for the 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses and the multiplier of 13

Furthermore, it applied Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram (2018) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur (2020) to define "consortium" as a compendious term including parental consortium for children regardless of dependency

The Court observed that the Tribunal failed to account for the future rise in income despite the deceased being self-employed

Applying Pranay Sethi, the Court added 25% to the established income of Rs. 2,400, totaling Rs. 3,000 per month

After a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 13, the dependency loss was recalculated at Rs. 3,12,000

Regarding consortium, the Insurance Company’s contention that major, independent sons are ineligible was rejected

The Court held that "parental consortium" compensates for the loss of parental aid, protection, and guidance, which is not strictly tied to financial dependency or co-residence

Consequently, following the 10% incremental rule from Pranay Sethi, the Court enhanced the consortium to Rs. 48,400 per claimant and raised funeral expenses and loss of estate to Rs. 18,150 each

The 20% deduction for contributory negligence remained undisturbed as it was not challenged

The appellants are entitled to an additional enhanced amount of Rs. 1,75,120 with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks and ordered the Tribunal to disburse the same to the claimants after deducting any unpaid Court fees