Spouse and dependent children are each entitled to separate spousal or parental consortium compensation.

On 23 June 2012, Shaik Janimiya, aged 48 years and employed as a private security personnel, was walking at Malkajgiri when car No. AP-29-AK-3717 allegedly, due to rash and negligent driving, struck him. He died while undergoing treatment. A criminal case was registered against the driver, and his wife and three children filed a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal assessed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.7,000, applied a multiplier of 13 and awarded Rs.8,44,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition. The High Court enhanced the award to Rs.11,00,672, principally by adding 25% towards future prospects, but awarded only Rs.77,000 collectively under the conventional heads and did not separately grant parental consortium to the children.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants challenged the assessment of income and the denial of proper parental consortium; notice had initially been issued only on the issue of parental consortium, but the Court also examined the income question.

Whether the wife and each of the three children of the deceased were entitled to separate amounts for spousal and parental consortium under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Whether the deceased’s monthly income should be assessed at Rs.9,000, as claimed by the appellants, rather than Rs.7,000, as determined by the Tribunal and affirmed in substance by the High Court

Whether the amounts under funeral expenses and loss of estate required enhancement in accordance with the principles governing conventional heads of compensation

Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act permits all legal representatives of a deceased accident victim to maintain a compensation claim; dependency affects the quantum, but absence of dependency does not extinguish the legal representative’s entitlement (Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender).

A “legal representative” includes persons representing or succeeding to the estate and persons suffering loss from the death (Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai).

Consortium is a recognised conventional head of compensation and includes spousal, parental and filial consortium; parental consortium compensates a child for the lost parental care, protection, affection, guidance and companionship (Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram).

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the conventional amounts were fixed at Rs.40,000 for consortium, Rs.15,000 for loss of estate and Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses, with enhancement of 10% every three years.

Future prospects and the multiplier method govern the computation of loss of dependency, subject to the evidence regarding income.

The Court held that the wife and all three children were legal representatives and dependants of the deceased. Applying Magma General Insurance and Pranay Sethi, it found that the wife was entitled to spousal consortium and each child to separate parental consortium; the Tribunal had erred by awarding the wife only Rs.5,000 and the High Court had erred by awarding a collective amount under the conventional heads without separately granting parental consortium.

The base consortium amount of Rs.40,000 per claimant was enhanced by 10% for the applicable three-year period, resulting in Rs.48,400 for each claimant, or Rs.1,93,600 in aggregate.

The Court did not interfere with the income of Rs.7,000 per month because the employer’s Director had supported that figure in evidence; accordingly, it retained the High Court’s computation of loss of dependency at Rs.10,23,672, including 25% future prospects, a one-fourth deduction and multiplier 13.

It further enhanced funeral expenses and loss of estate from Rs.10,000 each to Rs.15,000 each in accordance with Pranay Sethi.

The additional amount of Rs.1,46,600 was directed to carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation. The insurer was directed to deposit the additional compensation and interest with the Tribunal within six weeks, after which the amount was to be released to the four appellants in equal proportions through their respective bank accounts.