Parents and siblings are entitled to compensation for filial consortium upon accidental death of an unmarried son or brother.

On 16.03.2007 at about 8:00 p.m., late Pradip Deka was riding a bicycle from Mukalmua towards his home when vehicle No. AS-14-A-8545, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, hit him from behind, causing his death at the spot.

His parents and siblings filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The owner and driver did not contest the proceedings, while the Insurance Company contested the claim.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.7,50,000 with interest at 6% per annum and permitted the insurer to recover the amount from the owner/insured.

The insurer filed an appeal challenging the quantum, and the claimants filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement.

The deceased was 34 years old, self-employed in a stationery business and poultry farming, and the Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.5,000.

Whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the deceased’s income and the addition towards future prospects for determining loss of dependency.

Whether the amounts awarded under funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium required modification.

Whether the rate of interest should be enhanced from 6% to 9% per annum.

Whether the insurer was entitled to recover the compensation from the owner/insured on account of the driver’s absence of a valid driving licence.

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing claims for compensation arising from motor accidents and appeals against awards.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, it held that, for a self-employed deceased below 40 years of age, 40% of established income must be added towards future prospects; the appropriate conventional amounts were Rs.15,000 for loss of estate and Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses.

Under Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, filial consortium is compensable, including compensation to parents for loss of their child and to eligible family members for loss of love, care and companionship.

The multiplier is to be selected with reference to the age of the deceased, a position the insurer did not press in view of Pranay Sethi.

Where breach of the policy condition is established because the driver had no valid driving licence, the insurer must satisfy the award but may recover the paid amount from the owner/insured through due process.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at Rs.5,000 because the oral evidence and Exhibits 8 and 9 established the deceased’s businesses but did not prove the quantum of his earnings; therefore, a higher income of Rs.8,000 or Rs.12,000 could not be accepted.

Since the deceased was self-employed and 34 years old, the Tribunal’s addition of 50% for future prospects was reduced to 40%, producing a monthly income of Rs.7,000 and annual income of Rs.84,000.

After a 50% deduction for personal expenses, the annual dependency contribution was fixed at Rs.42,000; applying multiplier 16, loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.6,72,000 in favour of the dependent mother.

The Court corrected the conventional heads to Rs.15,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

It further held that the parents and siblings were entitled to filial consortium, awarding Rs.40,000 each to the mother, father and three siblings.

Considering prevailing bank-deposit rates, interest was enhanced to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The insurer’s evidence showed that the licence details related to Md. Jabbar Ali, whereas the offending vehicle was driven by Pabitra Baishya; in the absence of contrary evidence from the ex parte owner or driver, the breach was proved and the recovery direction was maintained.

The compensation was recalculated and enhanced from Rs.7,50,000 to Rs.9,02,000, comprising Rs.6,72,000 for loss of dependency, Rs.15,000 for loss of estate, Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs.2,00,000 towards filial consortium.

Only claimant No. 2, the dependent mother, was entitled to compensation for loss of dependency; the other claimants were excluded from that head but received consortium compensation as determined by the Court.

Interest was fixed at 9% per annum from the date of filing until full realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the outstanding amount within four weeks and was granted liberty to recover the compensation from the owner/insured in accordance with law.