Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Manjit Kaur & Ors on 10 March, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M)
National Insurance Co. Ltd. ......Appellant(s)
vs.
Manjit Kaur and others ......Respondent(s)
Date of Reserve: February 06, 2026
Date of Pronouncement:- 10 .03.2026
Date of Uploading:- 17.03.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO
Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate with
Ms. Preet Agora and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocates
for the appellant.
Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance
Company against the award dated 24.01.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for
short, ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the appellant-Insurance Company was fastened with
the liability to pay the compensation of Rs. 23,71,000/- to the claimant/respondent
No.1 to 4 along with interest @ 7.5% per annum and recovery rights were granted
to recover the same from owner of the offending vehicle as well as quantum of
compensation being on higher side.
1 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:10 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 2
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.06.2014, Jagtar Singh deceased
was on the wheels of one Trolla Truck No.PB-23F-6545, and was going from
Katani Kalan towards Kohara side. He was driving his Trolla Truck on the left side
of the road and at a moderate speed. When at about 9,00 PM, he had reached in
front of Kitty Bread, then Truck No.PB-10DZ-6236 which was being driven rashly
and negligently and at a zig-zag manner by its driver Mohinder Singh since
deceased son of Buta Singh, resident of Bajwa Colony, Banoor, District Mohali,
came from Kohara side and came on its wrong side of the road all of a sudden,
without giving any signal and struck against the side of Trolla Truck No. PB-23F-
6545, which was being driven by Jagtar Singh since deceased at a normal speed as
a result of said accident caused by Mohinder Singh deceased driver of Truck
No.PB-10DZ-6236, Jagtar Singh received multiple accidental injuries which
proved fatal and he scummed to the injuries on 05.07.2014. FIR No. 54 dated
26.06.2014 under Sections 279/337/338/427 of IPC was registered at P.S. Koom
Kalan, Ludhiana on the statement of Gurdial Singh.
3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and admitted
the factum of compensation.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by
the learned Tribunal :-
“1. -Whether on 25.06.2014 at about 9: 00 P.M, in the area of
P.S. Koom Kalan, deceased Jagtar Singh son of Ram Singh had
died in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration No.
PB-10DZ-6236 by Mohinder Singh deceased? OPP
2) If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to
compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent? OPP
3) Whether the present claim petition is not maintainable? OPR
2 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 3
4) Whether the claimants have no locus standi to file the present
claim petition? OPR
5) Whether no such accident took place with Truck bearing No.
PB-10DZ-6236 as alleged in the claim petition? OPR
6) Whether alleged driver of Truck bearing No. PB-10DZ-6236
was not not holding valid and effective driving license at the
time of alleged accident? OPR
7) Whether the present claim petition is bad for mis-joinder and
non-joinder? OPR
8) Whether respondent No. I did not have the valid registration
certificate, route permit and fitness certificate of Truck bearing
No. PB-10DZ-6236? OPR
9) Relief.”
5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on
record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants/respondent
Nos. 1 to 4. However, the appellant-Insurance Company was held liable to pay the
compensation at the first instance and granted the recovery rights to the appellant-
Insurance Company to recover the same from owner of the offending vehicle
(respondent No.5). Hence, the present appeal.
SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that
the deceased, Mohinder Singh, was not holding a valid and effective driving
licence at the time of the accident. He further submits that Mohinder Singh, who
was driving the offending trolla truck bearing registration No. PB-23-F-6545,
possessed only a licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and was not
authorised to drive a heavy goods vehicle.
7. He further argues that there was a clear violation of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the learned Tribunal, according to the
appellant-Insurance Company, erred in directing the appellant-Insurance Company
3 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 4
to satisfy the award at the first instance with liberty to recover the amount from the
owner of the offending vehicle. He further contends that such a finding is
unsustainable in law and that the liability to pay compensation ought to have been
fastened solely upon the owner of the offending vehicle.
8. Learned counsel further submits that learned Tribunal has committed
an error in law by awarding compensation separately under the heads of “loss of
consortium” as well as “loss of love and affection.” He has placed reliance upon
the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017) 16 SCC 680] to contend that
compensation under the head of “loss of love and affection” is not permissible, and
the claimants are entitled only to compensation under the conventional head of
“loss of consortium.”
9. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding
50% towards future prospects instead of 40% as per settled law.
10. On the strength of these submissions, learned counsel prays that the
present appeal be allowed.
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 4-
claimants submits that the alleged breach of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy gives rise to an inter se dispute between the appellant-Insurance
Company and the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, with which the
claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have no concern. He further contends that the
learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the settled legal position that even where
the insurer succeeds in establishing breach of policy conditions, the learned
Tribunal is competent to direct the Insurance Company to satisfy the award at the
first instance and thereafter recover the amount from the owner or driver of the
offending vehicle.
4 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 5
12. He furthermore contends that the learned Tribunal has rightly
awarded compensation. Therefore, according to the respondents, the impugned
award does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
13. On these premises, learned counsel prays that the present appeal,
being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case.
15. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant portion of the award. The
same is reproduced as under:-
“13 Now, the requisite question for determination arises as to
whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what
extent and from which of the respondents?
14 The claimants have come-forward with the plea that deceased
Jagtar Singh was a skilled heavy goods vehicle driver with different
transport companies from time to time and he was earning a sum of
Rs.15,000/- PM and his income was increasing very tepidly, he was to
start earning Rs. 30,000/- PM with a span of 2/3 years. He was
energetic and was 28 years old. The deceased was the only source of
moral and financial support to the claimants. The claimants have
become all alone in world and have no nears and dears and they have
suffered mental agony to the greatest extent on account of Jagtar
Singh. The claimants were totally dependants upon the deceased. The
deceased was lending all support to the claimants from all the corners.
The deceased was having very good habits and he was having sound
health. On account of the said accident, claimant No. I has lost her
son, claimant No. 2 has lost her life partner and claimants No.3 and 4
have lost their father in a childhood. The claimants were totally
dependants upon the income of the deceased. They depended upon the
deceased morally as well as financially. The deceased was the only ray
of hope for the claimants. On account of unnatural abrupt end of life of
deceased, the life of the claimants have plunged into darkness. They5 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 6have got no charm in the life. The claimants have suffered mental
agony to the greatest extent on account of untimely sudden death of
Jagtar Singh. The deceased remained 10 days in DMC and Hospital
and the claimants have spent a huge amount in at attempt to save the
life of Jagtar Singh since deceased. To prove this fact, the claimant
herself appeared into the witness box as PWI and proved documents ie,
medical bills Ex. Pl to Ex P124 amounting of Rs.3,17,401/-. The
claimants have duly established that they are the legal heirs and
dependents upon deceased Jagtar Singh who died in motor vehicle
accident occurred due to negligence of Mohinder Singh deceased. As
the claimants are the legal heirs and dependents, thus they are entitled
to compensation due to untimely death of Jagtar Singh. In such a
scenario. the deceased being skilled heavy goods vehicle driver with
different transport companies form time to time and though there is no
proof of his income, it is expected now a days that a person must
skilled worker be earning Rs.8000/- per month. The annual income
would thus comes to Rs 1,44,000/- (Rs 8000+4000/- i.e 50% future
prospects) X 12. As per the criteria laid down in Smt.Sarla Verma and
others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) Recent
Apex Judgments 373 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the
deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should
be one-third (1/4ch) where the number of dependent family are 4 to 6
as at the time of death of Jagtar Singh claimants were dependent upon
him. Accordingly after deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased
towards his personal and living expenses, the annual dependency of
the claimants comes to Rs.1,08,000/-. The claimants have come
forward with the plea that deceased Jagtar Singh was 32 years of age
at the time of accident. In postmortem Ex.P128, age of the deceased is
mentioned as 32 years. Accordingly, the age of the deceased at the time
of the accident is taken to be 32 years as per postmortem report
Ex.128. In view of the second schedule of the Act, a multiplier of 16
has to be applied to work out the compensation where the deceased
was in the age group of 31-35 years. Accordingly, after applying the6 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 7multiplier of 16 to the annual dependency of the claimants, the amount
of compensation would come to Rs. 17,28,000/-(Rs1,08,000 X 16).
15. Now amount of money can compensate the loss of a
human life. No amount of money can wipe the tears, the trauma of the
claimants. The trauma is for the lifetime. Therefore, the claimants are
also entitled to get non-pecuniary compensation towards loss of love
and affection, loss to estate and funeral expenses. In Vimal Kanwar
Versus Kishore Dan, PLR (CLXXI 2013-3), Santosh Devi Vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, 2012(2) RCR(Civil)
882, Savita Vs. Binder Singh and others 2014(3) CivCC 182,
Kalpanaraj and others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
2014(3) CivCC 456 and Smt. Neeta Vs. The Div. Manager, MSRTC,
Kolhapur, 2015(2) Civil Court Cases 524, Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India awarded separate amount of compensation for loss of love and
affection for each member of the family. Therefore all the claimants are
entitled for Rs.50,000/- each for loss of love and affection. Loss of
consortium Rs 1,00,000 and the compensation for funeral expenses are
assessed Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 3,17,401/- medical expenses. The total
amount of compensation would come to Rs.23,70,401/-
(Rs. 17.28,000/- Rs.25,000/-Rs.1,00,000/- Rs 2,00.000+ 3.17,401/-),
the round figure of which comes to Rs.23,71,000/-
16. Now the question arises from whom the claimants are
entitled to receive the compensation. Sh. R.K.Chand, Advocate counsel
for respondent No.2, Insurance Company Mohinder Singh deceased
was not having any valid driving licence He has vehemently argued
that further contended that Mohinder Singh sou of Buta Singh had only
an LMV Licence. He was not authorised to drive a heavy goods
vehicle. He further contended that Mohinder Singh deceased had
licence to drive light transport vehicle and the owner i.e respondent
No. I could not have checked or verified before handing over the
vehicle to him and respondent No. 1 also did not step into the witness
box, to state anything. He further contended that insurance company is
not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. He further argued that
in case Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation7 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 8amount, then recovery rights may kindly be granted to the Insurance
Company from respondents No.1. The counsel for the insurance
company proved document i.e. Insurance Policy Ex. RI, verification
report of DL. Ex R2 and Ex.R3 and copy of Driving License of
Mohinder Singh Ex.R4, verification report of permit as Ex R5 and Ex
P6 and copy of RC of vehicle No. PB-10DZ-6236 as Ex R7. As such the
insurance company has succeeded to prove that respondent No. I
violated the rules and terms of policy issued by respondent No.2. In
this regard, he referred National Insurance Co. Ltd. Va. Sarita and
Ors. 2014(2) RCR (Civil) 212, in which it was held that-breach of
policy terms-Driver of offending vehicle i.e, insured truck, had only an
LMV licence. He was not authorised to drive a heavy goods vehicle
Since the appellant has successfully proved the breach of the terms and
conditions of the policy, is entitled recovery rights against the
respondent No.2 the principal tortfeasor and the respondent No.3.
Similar observations were made by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana
High Court in Jamil Khan and another Vs M/s Bajaj Allanz General
Insurance company Itd. and others, 2013(1) RCR(Civil) 111.
Shamsher Singh Vs. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. and
others RCR(Civil) 117. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Kaushalaya Devi & Ors., 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 902, wherein the
How’ble Supreme Court has observed that driving had licence to drive
light transport vehicle and the owner could not have checked or
verified the licence for driving a heavy goods vehicle before handing
over the vehicle to him. Owner did tot step into the witness box to state
anything-Held Insurance Company not liable, owner is liable. The
registration of the offending Truck bearing No. PB-10DZ-6236 is not
in disputed. In view of the above said discussion, this Tribunal is of the
considered view that respondent No.1 violated the rules and terms of
policy issued by respondent No.2. Insurance Company proved that on
the strength of licence, copy of which was proved as Ex R4, the holder
was entitled to drive LMV LMVCAB, MCWG) Moreover respondent
No.1 had not checked or verified before handing over the vehicle to
Mohinder Singh deceased and respondent No. 1 also did not step into8 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 9the witness box to state anything in this regard. However the insurance
company could claim the recovery on the ground that Mohinder Singh
deceased was not authorised to drive a heavy goods vehicle and
respondent No. 2 also had not checked or verified the licence of
Mohinder Singh for driving a heavy goods vehicle before handing over
the vehicle to him. In view of the above observation, both respondents
No.1 owner and respondents No.2 Insurance Company are jointly and
severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.
So, these issues are decided accordingly.
Relief
18. As a result of my discussion above, the present claim petition
filed by the claimants is partly allowed, with coats. The claimants are
held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs 23,71,000 (Rs. Twenty
three lacs and seventy one thousands only) along with interest at the
rate of 7.1/2% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition in.
08.09.2014 till today. The amount shall be paid firstly by respondent
No.2, the Insurance Company, which can recover the amount from
respondent No.1 by executing this award like a decree, to the claimants
within two months form the date of receipt of copy of this award,
failing which the claimants are also entitled future interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of award till the realization of total
amount. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned amongst
the claimants as under-
1. Rajwinder Kaur (widow) (claimant No. 2) Rs 11,71,000/-
2. Anmolpreet Singh minor son (claimant No.3) Rs.4,00,000/-
3. Gurnam Singh minor son (claimant No.4) Rs 4,00,000/-
4. Manjit Kaur mother (Claimant No. 1) Rs. 4,00,000/-
The amount qua the share of minor claimants i.e. Amolpreet
Singh and Gurnam Singh-claimants No.2 and 3) shall be deposited in a
fixed account in the name of the minor with some nationalized Bank,
under the guardianship of their mother Smt. Rajwinder Kaur (claimant
No.1) till they attain majority.”
9 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 10
16. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this
Court finds no infirmity in the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the
issue of liability.
17. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant-Insurance Company
has succeeded in establishing that the deceased Mohinder Singh was holding only a
Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) licence and was not authorised to drive a heavy goods
vehicle, the consequence of such breach is now well settled in law. The consistent
view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court is that the dispute
regarding breach of policy conditions remains essentially an inter se dispute
between the insurer and the insured. Such breach cannot be permitted to defeat the
legitimate claim of third-party victims under the benevolent scheme of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
18. The learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that although there have
been a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the claimants,
being third-party victims, cannot be left remediless. In such circumstances, the
settled principle is that the Insurance Company is required to satisfy the award at
the first instance and thereafter recover the amount from the owner or driver of the
offending vehicle.
19. The direction issued by the learned Tribunal directing the appellant-
Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants at the first
instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle,
is thus in consonance with the settled legal position governing motor accident
claims.
20. Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal fastening
the primary liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company to satisfy the award,
while simultaneously granting it recovery rights against the owner of the offending
10 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 11
vehicle, are well reasoned and firmly rooted in settled law and do not call for any
interference by this Court.
21. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal committed an error in law by
awarding compensation separately under the heads of “loss of consortium” as well
as “loss of love and affection” is concerned, the said submission merits acceptance.
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Pathmavathi and Others v. Bharti
AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, 2026 INSC 131, has recently
clarified the legal position with regard to compensation under conventional heads.
The Apex Court has categorically held that “loss of love and affection” is not an
independent or distinct head of compensation, and the same stands subsumed
within the broader concept of consortium, which includes spousal, parental and
filial consortium. Consequently, separate compensation under the head of loss of
love and affection is impermissible. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced
as under:-
“22. In Rajesh (supra), this Court recognised “loss of
love and affection” as a distinct head of compensation, reflecting the
non-pecuniary deprivation suffered by family members upon the
untimely death of a loved one. However, the Constitution Bench in
Pranay Sethi (supra) expressly disapproved this approach holding
that Rajesh (supra) was rendered per incuriam and that
compensation should be confined to three conventional heads, i.e.,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses in order to
preserve consistency and certainty in awards. Observing
disagreement, Pranay Sethi (supra) held thus:
52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it
difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir
Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54]. It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral
expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,00011 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 12towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head
relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist.
Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54] refers
to Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012)
6 SCC 421], it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional
and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on
percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion.
Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified.
Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be
no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest,
escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court
cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in
this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in
determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there
will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a
consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts
are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix
reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000
respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an
acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or
quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount
that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in
every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10%
in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will
bring in consistency in respect of those heads.
23. There can be no quarrel with the binding nature of Pranay Sethi
(supra). Judicial discipline demands that a Constitution Bench
decision must prevail over a judgment of a Bench of lesser strength.
Accordingly, this Court is constrained to follow the law declared
therein.
24. That said, it is difficult to ignore the conceptual tension that
underlies this exclusion. The head of “future prospects” itself is a
12 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 13
creation of judicial interpretation, evolved to respond to socio-
economic realities and the legitimate expectations of dependents. If
the law is capable of recognising anticipated economic progression
as a valid loss, it is not too clear why emotional deprivation
manifested in loss of love and affection must be viewed as an
impermissible head, especially when Chapter XII of the Act is a
beneficial piece of legislation meant to help people in distress arising
out of road accidents.
25. The concern expressed in Pranay Sethi (supra) was primarily one
of consistency and avoidance of unguided discretion. However,
consistency, though desirable, cannot be elevated to a point where it
eclipses the core objective of awarding “just compensation”. The
law must remain responsive to lived human realities, especially in
cases involving the sudden rupture of familial bonds.
26. It is in this context that the subsequent decision of this Court in
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram17 assumes
significance. This Court expanded the ambit of “consortium” to
include parental and filial consortium, implicitly acknowledging the
emotional and relational loss suffered by children and parents alike.
(2018) 18 SCC 130 This doctrinal expansion suggests that the
distinction between “consortium” and “loss of love and affection”
may be one of form rather than substance. The coordinate Bench
ruled as follows:
21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680] dealt with
the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a
death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal
parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses
“spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial
consortium”.
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help,
comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a
loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual
13 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 14
relations with the deceased spouse: [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9
SCC 54].
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to
the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the
surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation,
affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. [Black’s
Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2. Parental consortium is
granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of
“parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training”. 21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An
accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony
to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a
parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued
for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family
unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about
the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions
world-over have recognised that the value of a child’s consortium far
exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case
of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to
be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a
child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss
of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine
claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or
unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded
loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental
consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor
vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded
compensation on this count [Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram
v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848; Uttarakhand High Court
in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435;
14 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 15
Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary,
1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74]. However, there was no clarity with
respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded
on loss of filial consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be
governed by the principles of awarding compensation under “loss of
consortium” as laid down in Pranay Sethi. In the present case, we
deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the
deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.
27. Interestingly, we find from paragraph 25 of Magma General
Insurance (supra) that apart from Rs. 80,000/- awarded on account
of filial consortium, this Court awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of
loss and affection in addition.
28. More recently, in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Satinder Kaur18, a three-Judge Bench of this Court harmonised the
principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General
Insurance (supra) to ensure uniformity in the award of compensation
under conventional heads. Reaffirming the binding nature of Pranay
Sethi (supra), this Court held that compensation in death cases is
confined to three conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses. At the same time, drawing upon
Magma General Insurance (supra), this Court clarified that
consortium is a compendious concept encompassing spousal,
parental and filial consortium. It was further held that loss of love
and affection is subsumed within loss of consortium and cannot be
awarded as a separate head. This Court held as follows:
(2021) 11 SC 780
34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with
respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection.
Several Tribunals and the High Courts have been awarding
compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and
affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi [National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680], has
15 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 16
recognised only three conventional heads under which compensation
can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses. In Magma General [Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130], this Court gave a comprehensive
interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental
consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is
comprehended in loss of consortium.
35. The Tribunals and the High Courts are directed to award
compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate
conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation
towards loss of love and affection as a separate head.
29. Consistent with the aforesaid position but notwithstanding the
reservations noted earlier, this Court is bound by the law declared by
the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), which does not
countenance “loss of love and affection” as a distinct head of
compensation. As subsequently clarified in Satinder Kaur (supra),
referring to both Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General
Insurance (supra), the non-pecuniary loss arising from deprivation
of love and affection is comprehended within the broader head of
“consortium”. Consequently, no separate award under the head of
loss of love and affection is warranted..”
23. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the award of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal under
the separate head of “loss of love and affection” cannot be sustained in law.
Accordingly, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the said head is liable to
be deducted from the total compensation.
24. So far as the contention raised by the appellant-Insurance Company
that the learned Tribunal erred in adding 50% towards future prospects instead of
40% is concerned, the said submission deserves acceptance.
25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi and others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has categorically laid down that in
16 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 17
cases where the deceased was below the age of 40 years and was not in permanent
employment, the permissible addition towards future prospects is 40% of the
established income. In the present case, the deceased was working as a truck driver
and was not holding a permanent salaried post. Moreover, the age of the deceased
at the time of the accident was 32 years.
26. In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi‘s case, the appropriate
addition towards future prospects in the present case would be 40% of the
established income and not 50% as applied by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, to
that extent, the award passed by the learned Tribunal requires modification.
27. Consequently, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal
requires to be recalculated and the same is calculated as under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.8000/-
2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.3200/- (40% of 8000)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.2800/- (11200X 1/4th)
expenditure 1/4th
4. Total Income Rs.8400/-(11200-2800)
4 Multiplier 16
5 Annual Dependency Rs.16,12,800/- (8400X12X16)
Medical Expenses Rs.3,17,401/-
6 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
7 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
8 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,60,000/-
Spousal : Rs. 40,000/-x1
Filial : Rs. 40,000/-x1
Parental : Rs. 40,000/-x2
Total Compensation Rs.21,20,201/-
17 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::
FAO-5448-2017 (O&M) 18
28. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176
and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5
Supreme Court Cases 107, the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are granted the
interest @ 9% per annum on the above mentioned amount from the date of filing of
claim petition till the date of its realization.
29. It is further reveals from case file that vide order dated 03.10.2017,
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has stayed payment beyond Rs.20,00,000/-.
30. Consequently, respondent Nos. 1 to 4-claimants are held entitled to a
total compensation of ₹21,20,201/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
31. Accordingly, the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the amount of compensation as awarded by this Court after adjusting the amount, if
any, already paid to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4-claimants, before the Tribunal
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment. Upon such deposit, the learned Tribunal shall release the amount to the
respondent Nos. 1 to 4-claimants as per ratio settled in award dated 24.01.2017.
The claimants/ respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are directed to furnish their bank account
details to the Tribunal.
32. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and award dated 24.01.2017
is modified to the above extent.
33. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
10.03.2026
Gaurav Arora
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes
18 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 20:48:11 :::