The Gauhati High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the family of a deceased motor accident victim to Rs 8.81 lakh, holding that the two children of the deceased were entitled to parental consortium, a head of compensation not awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The observation was made by Justice Kaushik Goswami while hearing an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 22 June 2016 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Kamrup (M), Guwahati.
The claim was filed by Bani Deka, the widow of the deceased, along with her two sons, Raju Deka and Kaju Deka, seeking compensation for the death of Bani Deka in a road traffic accident. The tribunal had awarded Rs 5.04 lakh towards loss of dependency, Rs 25,000 for funeral expenses, Rs 50,000 towards loss of consortium, and Rs 10,000 towards loss of estate, aggregating to Rs 5.89 lakh. The appellants sought enhancement of this amount, contending that the tribunal had erred in not assessing compensation towards future prospects and in not determining loss of consortium in accordance with the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017).
Justice Goswami referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors (2008), which held that parental consortium is to be awarded to children who lose a parent in a motor vehicle accident. The court further noted that the principles governing the quantum of such compensation are to be derived from Pranay Sethi (supra).
In view of the settled legal position, and since the tribunal had not awarded any amount towards parental consortium to the two sons of the deceased, the High Court held that the judgment and award required modification to that extent. The claimants were accordingly entitled to compensation towards spousal consortium for the widow and parental consortium for the two sons.
The court also found that the tribunal had failed to assess any amount towards future prospects. It noted that the deceased was 44 years old at the time of the accident and worked as a Power Tiller Operator. While the tribunal had assessed the monthly income at Rs 4,500, the record established it to be Rs 5,000. The Insurance Company conceded that the tribunal had erred in not awarding compensation towards future prospects and in not determining loss of consortium according to law.
The High Court held that, since the deceased was self-employed and aged 44, the claimants were entitled to an addition of 25% of the established income towards future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of Rs 5,000 was increased by 25% to Rs 6,250. The annual income was thus worked out at Rs 75,000. After deducting one-third towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the annual contribution to the family was assessed at Rs 50,000. Applying the multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs 7 lakh.
On the head of loss of consortium, the court observed that although the tribunal had awarded Rs 50,000, it had not done so in accordance with the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi. The High Court accordingly re-assessed this component. The final award, inclusive of loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and the re-assessed amounts towards loss of consortium and future prospects, amounted to Rs 8.81 lakh.
The Insurance Company did not contest the concession regarding the tribunal’s errors on future prospects and consortium. The High Court accordingly enhanced the compensation from Rs 5.89 lakh to Rs 8.81 lakh, with interest at 6% per annum, as sought by the appellants.