Spousal and parental consortium are separately payable to each eligible claimant.

The appellants, being the wife, two daughters and two sons of the deceased, challenged under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the judgment dated 6 October 2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta, in MAC Case No. 368/2021.

The deceased died in a motor vehicle accident on 12 March 2021 and was stated to have earned a monthly pension of approximately ₹35,011/₹35,001 at the time of the accident.

The Tribunal awarded ₹20,30,616 as compensation, deducting one-third of the income towards personal expenses and making a lump-sum award of ₹70,000 towards loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses.

The claimants sought enhancement on the grounds that the income and number of dependants had been wrongly assessed, future prospects had been omitted, and consortium and other conventional heads had not been separately calculated.

The insurer opposed enhancement, contending that the family pension of ₹36,625 commenced only from 1 January 2023 and was not the deceased’s income on the date of the accident; further, the married son and daughter were not dependants.

1. Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased’s monthly income with reference to the income prevailing on the date of the accident, rather than the family pension received subsequently by the widow?

2. Whether deduction of one-third towards the deceased’s personal expenses was proper when two of the deceased’s children were married and had separate families?

3. Whether the claimants were entitled to an addition for future prospects despite the deceased being above 60 years of age?

4. Whether consortium was payable separately to the surviving spouse and eligible children, and whether the conventional heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses required separate computation with statutory enhancement?

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

Applying National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, it held that future prospects are not added for a permanent salaried employee who was above 60 years of age, and that the conventional amounts for consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses are subject to 10% enhancement every three years.

Under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, deduction towards personal expenses depends upon the number of actual dependants, with one-third ordinarily deductible where there are two or three dependants.

Relying on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, and the three-Judge Bench decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, the Court recognised spousal, parental and filial consortium as distinct forms of compensation payable to the respective eligible claimants.

The Court held that the two-Judge Bench decision in Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagat Singh Rawat, Civil Appeal Nos. 2410–2412/2023, could not prevail over the contrary binding principle laid down by the larger Bench in Satinder Kaur.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s income assessment because compensation must be calculated on the basis of the deceased’s income on the date of the accident.

The widow’s family pension of ₹36,625 commenced only on 1 January 2023, nearly two years after the accident, and therefore could not be treated as the deceased’s income in March 2021.

It also affirmed the one-third deduction because the deceased’s son and daughter were married and had independent family obligations; consequently, the relevant dependants were the wife, one minor son and one unmarried daughter.

No future-prospects addition was permissible because the deceased was above 60 years of age under Pranay Sethi.

However, the Court found the Tribunal’s lump-sum award of ₹70,000 legally unsustainable.

Applying Magma General Insurance and Satinder Kaur, it awarded separate consortium of ₹40,000 each to the widow and two children, totalling ₹1,20,000, enhanced by 10% to ₹1,32,000.

It separately awarded ₹15,000 for loss of estate and ₹15,000 for funeral expenses, each enhanced by 10% to ₹16,500.

The loss of dependency remained ₹19,60,616, calculated as annual income of ₹4,20,132 less one-third personal expenses, multiplied by the applicable multiplier of seven.

The Tribunal’s award was enhanced from ₹20,30,616 to ₹21,25,616, comprising ₹19,60,616 for loss of dependency, ₹1,32,000 for spousal and parental consortium, ₹16,500 for loss of estate and ₹16,500 for funeral expenses.

The insurer was directed to deposit the modified amount before the Tribunal within six weeks.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the compensation subject to appropriate protection and distribution orders, while releasing ₹10,00,000 immediately to claimant No. 1, the widow, for immediate needs and expenses.