THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED versus SMT. SOMWATI AND OTHERS on 7 September 2020

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals raising common questions of law have beenheard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Fordeciding these appeals, it is sufficient to notice the facts in detail in CivilAppeal No. 3093/2020(arising out of SLP(C) No.23478 of 2019),New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Somwati andOthers and brief facts in other appeals.

3. All these appeals have been filed by three Insurance Companies,i.e., New India Assurance Company Limited, CholamandalamMS General Insurance Company Ltd. and The Oriental InsuranceCompany Ltd. questioning the judgments of the High Courts arising outof the award by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) with regardto the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants under two heads,i.e., “Loss of Consortium” and “loss of love and affection.”

Civil Appeal NO. 3093/2020(arising out of SLP(C)No.23478of 2019), New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt.Somwati and Others

4. Ram Jiyawan, the husband of Smt. Somwati died in a MotorVehicle accident on 06.12.2001 leaving behind his widow Smt. Somwatiand seven minor children. Claim petition No.7 of 2002 was filed underSection 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation ofRs.15,25,000/-. The MACT by award dated 22.03.2003 allowed a claimof Rs. 1,67,000/- with 9% interest. An appeal was filed by Smt. SomwatiDevi and others in the High Court being F.A.F.O.No.1894 of 2003. TheHigh Court allowed the appeal of the claimants and awarded acompensation of Rs.12,54,000/-. Against the judgment of the High Courtdated 25.02.2019, this appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.The grant of compensation under two heads has been challenged in thisappeal, i.e., item No. (vi) and (viii), which are to the following effect:- “(vi)Loss of love and affection= Rs.4,00,000/-(Rs.50,000/- to eachof the eight claimants).

(viii) Loss of Parental Consortium to claimant/appellant nos.2 to 8= Rs.2,80,000/-(Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants).”

5. This Court while issuing notice on 24.04.2019 passed followingorder:- A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

“O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Issue notice returnable in four weeks limited to the issuewhether both consortium and loss of love and affection could havebeen awarded by the High Court in this case.

B

Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.

Until further orders, there shall be stay of 2 payment of thecompensation amount payable to the claimants towards clause(vi) of the impugned judgment which reads as under :

“Loss of love and affection=Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- toCeach of the eight claimants)”

6. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, the respondentshave appeared and filed reply as well as written submissions.

Civil Appeal No. 3094/2020(arising out of SLP(C)No.4801of 2020), New India Assurance Company Limited Versus SangitaDDevi and Others

7. Sanjay Kumar, husband of the respondent Sangeeta Devi diedof Motor Vehicle accident on 12.01.2015. Claim Petition bearing MACPNo.862 of 2016 was filed by the respondents, which claim petition wasallowed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, granting a compensation ofERs.17,71,000/- with interest of 9%. Claimants filed an appeal in the HighCourt. The High Court following the judgment of this Court in MagmaGeneral Insurance Company ltd. Versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ramand Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, granted compensation for ‘loss of loveand affection’ at the rate of Rs.50,000/- to each of eight claimants andsimilarly, under the head ‘Loss of consortium’ at the rate of Rs.40,000/-Fto all the eight claimants. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Delhi HighCourt, Insurance Company has filed appeal challenging the order of theHigh Court.

Civil Appeal No. 3095/2020(arising out of SLP(C)No.4643of 2020), New India Assurance Company Limited Versus AzmatiGKhatoon and Others

8. Mohd. Hasibul Bassan, died in a Motor Vehicle accident on29.10.2007. Claim Petition was filed by respondents which has beenallowed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting a compensation ofRs.17,32,776/- with interest. The appellant filed an appeal in the HighHCourt. The High Court granted compensation under the head ‘loss of love and affection’ at the rate of Rs.50,000/- to each seven claimantsand Rs.40,000/- each to seven claimants under the head ‘loss ofconsortium’. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Delhi High Court,Insurance Company is in appeal.

Civil Appeal No. 3096/2020 (arising out of SLP(C)No.5441of 2020), Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance CompanyLimited Versus Umarani and Others

9. The deceased Krishnasamy met with a vehicular accident on07.09.2014 who subsequently died. Claim petition was filed by therespondents which has been allowed by Motor Vehicle AccidentCompensation Tribunal granting compensation of Rs.13,60,000/-. Appealwas filed by the Insurance Company. The award under the head ‘loss ofconsortium’, an amount of Rs.One Lakh and award under the head‘loss of love and affection’ an amount of Rs. Three Lakhs was confirmedby the High Court, which is challenged by Insurance Company in thisappeal.

Civil Appeal No. 3097/2020(arising out of SLP(C)No.6381of 2020),New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt.Pinki and Others

10. One Dinesh Kumar met with a motor vehicle accident on11.06.2014 and died. Claim Petition filed by the respondents was allowedby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting an amount ofRs.13,01,776/-. Claimants filed an appeal before the High Court whichenhanced the compensation. The High Court granted compensation underthe head ‘loss of love and affection’ Rs.50,000/- each to four claimantsand under the head ‘loss of consortium’ at the rate of Rs.40,000/- eachto four claimants. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, InsuranceCompany is in this appeal.

Civil Appeal No. 3098/2020(arising out of SLP(C)No.7556of 2020), New India Assurance Company Limited Versus NanakChand and Others

11. Gaurav died in a motor vehicle accident on 23.09.2010. Claimpetition was filed by the parents of the deceased, which was allowedgranting compensation of Rs.4,83,348/-. Claimants filed an appeal in theHigh Court which was allowed. The High Court granted compensationof Rs.50,000/- each to both the claimants under the head ‘loss of loveand affection’ and Rs.40,000/- each to both the claimants under the A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Ahead ‘loss of consortium’. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court,this appeal has been filed.Civil Appeal No. 3099/2020(arising out of SLP(C)No.8250of 2020),The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Smt.

Rinku Devi and Others

B12. Birbal Kumar met with an accident on 27.07.2008 resulting inhis death. Claim petition filed by the respondents claiming Rs.Twentylakhs was allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal grantingcompensation of Rs.5,80,000/-. Insurance company filed an appeal. TheTribunal has awarded filial consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- to eachof the claimants, i.e., wife, two children and father totalingCRs.1,60,000/-. The High Court in the appeal filed by the InsuranceCompany further enhanced the compensation under the head ‘loss oflove and affection’ at the rate of Rs.50,000/- to each of four claimants,i.e., enhancing total amount by Rs. Two Lakhs. Insurance Companyaggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has come up with thisDappeal.13. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well aslearned counsel for the claimants.

14. In all the appeals, only issue to be considered is with regard toaward of compensation to the claimant under two heads, i.e., (a)loss ofEconsortium and (b) loss of love and affection. With regard to ‘consortium’,the question is as to whether it is only the wife who is entitled forconsortium or the consortium can be awarded to children and parentsalso.

15. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that theFConstitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd.Versus Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, has laid downthat there are only three conventional heads namely (i)‘loss of estate’,(ii)‘loss of consortium’ and (iii)‘funeral expenses’, for which the amountdetermined by the Constitution Bench is Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- andRs.15,000/- respectively. Thus, the total amount under conventional headGwas Rs.70,000/- and the amount under conventional heads could notexceed Rs.70,000/-.

16. It is submitted that the amount granted under the head ‘loss oflove and affection’ is wholly without jurisdiction and further amountgranted under the head ‘consortium’ could not be more thanH

Rs.40,000/- and the amount of ‘consortium’ is only payable to wife whois entitled to Rs.40,000/- and the Tribunals and the High Courts committederror in awarding amount of consortium to each of the claimant, i.e.,wife, children and parents.

17. It is submitted that even after the Constitution Bench Judgment,this Court has allowed amounts under conventional heads as ‘loss ofstate’ Rs.15,000/-, ‘consortium’ Rs.40,000/- and ‘funeral expenses’Rs.15,000/-. It is submitted that after the judgment of Pranay Sethi, thisCourt had confined the payment under conventional heads as perjudgment of Pranay Sethi, the impugned judgment of the High Courtawarding compensation under the head ‘loss of love and affection’ aswell as ‘consortium’ to each of the claimant is contrary to the law laiddown by this Court and has to be set aside.

18. An additional submission has been made by learned counselappearing for the appellant in The Oriental Insurance Company ltd.Versus Smt. Rinku Devi and others. Learned counsel submits thatalthough MACT has erred in allowing consortium to four claimants atthe rate of Rs.40,000/- but the High Court in the appeal filed by theInsurance Company further enhanced the compensation under the head‘loss of love and affection’. The compensation could not have beenenhanced on the appeal filed by the insurance company when theclaimants have not filed an appeal. Learned counsel further submits thatthe High Court further committed an error in directing the statutory amountdeposited by the appellant along with the appeal to be deposited inAASRA fund opened in Delhi High Court which ought not to have beendirected since the appellant has raised substantial questions of law andthe appeal deserves to be allowed.

19. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants refuting thesubmissions of counsel for the appellant contends that the award to eachof the claimants at the rate of Rs.40,000/- under the head ‘consortium’is in accordance with law laid down by this Court. It is submitted that theaward of compensation under the head ‘consortium’ cannot be given anarrow interpretation. The amount under the head ‘consortium’ has rightlybeen given not only to wife but children and parents. Learned counselfor the claimant has supported the judgments of the High Court.

20. Learned counsel for the parties have also placed reliance onvarious judgments of this Court, which shall be referred to whileconsidering the submissions in detail.

A

BC

DE

F

G

H

A21. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel forthe parties and have perused the record.

22. The expression ‘compensation’ is a comprehensive term whichincludes a claim for the damages. Compensation is by way of atonementfor the injury caused.

B

B23. The claimant in a claim for award of compensation underSection 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is entitled for just compensation.The just compensation has to be equitable and fair. The loss of life andlimb can never be compensated in an equal measure but the statutoryprovisions under Motor Vehicles Act is a social piece of legislation whichhas been enacted with intent and object to facilitate the claimants to getCredress for the loss of the member of family, compensate the loss insome measure and to compensate the claimant to a reasonable extent.

24. We may refer to the judgment of this Court in GeneralManager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, TrivandrumVersus Susamma Thomas(Mrs) and others, (1994) 2 SCC 176. ThisDcourt considering the concept of compensation under Motor Vehicle Act,1939, laid down following in paragraph 5:- “5....The determination of the quantum must answer whatcontemporary society “would deem to be a fair sum such as wouldallow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his among hisEneighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fairthing”. The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the “lawvalues life and limb in a free society in generous scales”. All thismeans that the sum awarded must be fair and reasonable byaccepted legal standards.”

F25. In the above case also, this Court awarded the amount underthe conventional head of ‘loss of consortium’.

26. Another judgment which needs to be noted is the judgment ofthis Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi TransportCorporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, in which judgment inparagraph 16, this Court while elaborating the “just compensation” laidGdown following: - “5....”Just compensation is adequate compensation whichis fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case,to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far asmoney can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating H

to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza,largesse or source of profit.”

27. This court also awarded an amount under the head ‘loss ofconsortium’ to the wife.

28. We need to notice the Constitution Bench judgment in NationalInsurance Company Ltd.(supra) which case notices the earlierjudgments of this Court where compensation was awarded towards lossof consortium. In paragraph 46, the following was laid down: -

“46. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grantof loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. InSantosh Devi, the two-Judge Bench followed the traditional methodand granted Rs.5000/- for transportation of the body, Rs.10,000/-as funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- as regards the loss ofconsortium. In Sarla Verma, the Court granted Rs.5000/- underthe head of loss of estate, Rs.5000/- towards funeral expensesand Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. In Rajesh (2013) 9SCC 54, the Court granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss ofconsortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. It alsogranted Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minorchildren. The Court enhanced the same on the principle that aformula framed to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue has to be contrasted from a legal principle andought to be periodically revisited as has been held in Santosh Devi(2012) 6 SCC 421. On the principle of revisit, it fixed differentamount on conventional heads. What weighed with the Court isfactum of inflation and the price index. It has also been moved bythe concept of loss of consortium. We are inclined to think so, forwhat it states in that regard. We quote: (Rajesh case):- “17...In legal parlance, “consortium” is the right of thespouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society,solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate.That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properlyunderstood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love,care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to becompensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniarydamage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads ofaward of compensation in other parts of the world moreparticularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc.

A

BC

D

EF

G

H

A

AEnglish courts have also recognised the right of a spouse toget compensation even during the period of temporarydisablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made anattempt to compensate the loss of spouse’s affection, comfort,solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care andsexual relations during the future years. Unlike theBcompensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions,since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensatedfor the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a majoramount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that itwould only be just and reasonable that the courts award atCleast rupees one lakh for loss of consortium.””

29. In paragraph 52, the Constitution Bench opined that reasonablefigures on conventional head namely ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of consortium’and ‘funeral expenses’ should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. In paragraph 52, following has been laid down: -

“52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, wefind it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It hasgranted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/-loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care andguidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care andminor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to SantoshDevi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional andtraditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined onpercentage basis because that would not be an acceptablecriterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have tobe quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonablefoundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index,fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to benoticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. Therehas been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will beextreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless thethumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking anykind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passedby the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore,we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us thatreasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate,loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, D

E

F

G

H

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SMT.SOMWATI AND OTHERS [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle ofrevisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisitshould not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that itwould be condign that the amount that we have quantified shouldbe enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and theenhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of threeyears. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring inconsistency in respect of those heads.”

30. In paragraph 59.8, the Court further held that the amount ofconventional head should be enhanced at the rate of 10% every threeyear. In paragraph 59.8, following was held:- “59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss ofestate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaidamounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every threeyears.”

31. The next judgment which needs to be noted is Magma GeneralInsurance Company Limited versus Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ramand others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the concept of consortium wasexplained in paragraphs 21,22 and 23 which are as follows: - “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi(supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation isto be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss ofConsortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendiousterm which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parentalconsortium’,and ‘filial consortium’. The right to consortium wouldinclude the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace andaffection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. Withrespect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with thedeceased spouse.

21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertainingto the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensationto the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation,affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.”

21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the prematuredeath of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection,society, discipline, guidance and training.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensationin the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leadingto the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parentsand family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is tolose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for theirlove, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

B

22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms aboutthe status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictionsworld over have recognized that the value of a child’s consortiumfar exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded inthe case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permitCparents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium onthe death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is acompensation for loss of the love, affection, care andcompanionship of the deceased child.

23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed atDproviding relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuineclaims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, orunmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awardedloss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. ParentalConsortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motorvehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awardedEcompensation on this count. However, there was no clarity withrespect to the principles on which compensation could be awardedon loss of Filial Consortium.”

32. A two-Judge Bench in Magma General Insurance CompanyLimited awarded the amount of Rs.40,000/- to father and sister of theFdeceased. Paragraph 24 is as follows: - “24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortiumwill be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In thepresent case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and theGsister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss ofFilial Consortium.”

33. A three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance CompanyLtd. versus Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and others, (2020)SCC Online 410, had reaffirmed the view of two-Judge Bench in H

Magma General insurance Company Ltd. Three-Judge Bench fromparagraph 53 to 65, dealt with three conventional heads. The entirediscussion on three conventional heads of three-Judge Bench is asfollows:- “53. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitution Bench held that indeath cases, compensation would be awarded only under threeconventional heads viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeralexpenses.

54. The Court held that the conventional and traditional heads,cannot be determined on percentage basis, because that wouldnot be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income,the said heads have to be quantified, which has to be based on areasonable foundation. It was observed that factors such as priceindex, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates, are aspects whichhave to be taken into consideration.

The Court held 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 Court was of the view that the amounts to be awarded underthese conventional heads should be enhanced by 10% every threeyears, which will bring consistency in respect of these heads.

a) Loss of Estate – Rs. 15,000 to be awarded

b) Loss of Consortium

55. Loss of Consortium, in legal parlance, was historically given anarrow meaning to be awarded only to the spouse i.e. the right ofthe spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society,solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. Theloss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouseis entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The conceptof nonpecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the majorheads for awarding compensation in various jurisdictions such asthe United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts haverecognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even duringthe period of temporary disablement.

56. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors.,12 this Court interpreted “consortium” to be a compendious term,which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

well as filial consortium. The right to consortium would includethe company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affectionof the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to aspouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.

57. Parental consortiumis granted to the child upon the prematureBdeath of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection,society, discipline, guidance and training.

58. Filial consortiumis the right of the parents to compensation inthe case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading tothe death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parentsand family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is tolose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for theirlove and affection, and their role in the family unit.

C

59. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the valueof a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of thecompensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. MostDjurisdictions permit parents to be awarded compensation underloss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awardedto the parents is the compensation for loss of love and affection,care and companionship of the deceased child.

60. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation whichhas been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims,or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where aparent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, theparents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under thehead of Filial Consortium.

E

61. Parental Consortium is awarded to the children who lose thecare and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents.

F

62. The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as perthe amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra).

63. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformityGwith respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love andaffection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awardingcompensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love andaffection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), hasrecognized only three conventional heads under whichcompensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss ofHconsortium and funeral expenses.

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SMT.SOMWATI AND OTHERS [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

64. In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensiveinterpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parentalconsortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affectionis comprehended in loss of consortium.

65. The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to awardcompensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimateconventional head. There is no justification to award compensationtowards loss of love and affection as a separate head.

c) Funeral Expenses – Rs. 15,000 to be awarded”

34. The Three-Judge Bench in the above case approved thecomprehensive interpretation given to the expression ‘consortium’ toinclude spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filialconsortium. Three-Judge Bench however further laid down that ‘loss oflove and affection’ is comprehended in ‘loss of consortium’, hence, thereis no justification to award compensation towards ‘loss of love andaffection’ as a separate head.

35. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has also not underconventional head included any compensation towards ‘loss of love andaffection’ which have been now further reiterated by three-Judge Benchin United India Insurance Company Ltd.(supra). It is thus nowauthoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded underthe head ‘loss of love and affection’.

36. The word ‘consortium’ has been defined in Black’s lawDictionary, 10th edition. The Black’s law dictionary also simultaneouslynotices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortiumin following manner:- “Consortium 1. The benefits that one person, esp. A spouse, isentitled to receive from another, including companionship,cooperation, affection, aid, financial support, and (between spouses)sexual relations a claim for loss of consortium.

•Filial consortium A child’s society, affection, andcompanionship given to a parent.

•Parental consortium A parent’s society, affection andcompanionship given to a child.

•Spousal consortium A spouse’s society, affection andcompanionship given to the other spouse.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A37. The Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.(Supra) aswell as United India Insurance Company ltd.(Supra), Three-JudgeBench laid down that the consortium is not limited to spousal consortiumand it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Inparagraph 87 of United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra),‘consortium’ to all the three claimants was thus awarded. Paragraph 87Bis quoted below:- “87. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the deceasedSatpal Singh left behind a widow and three children as hisdependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra)and Magma General (supra), the following amounts are awardedCunder the conventional heads:-

i) Loss of Estate: Rs. 15,000

ii) Loss of Consortium:

a) Spousal Consortium: Rs. 40,000

Db) Parental Consortium: 40,000 x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000

iii) Funeral Expenses: Rs. 15,000"

38. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that PranaySethi has only referred to spousal consortium and no other consortiumwas referred to in the judgment of Pranay Sethi, hence, there is noEjustification for allowing the parental consortium and filial consortium.The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has referred to amount ofRs.40,000/- to the ‘loss of consortium’ but the Constitution Bench hadnot addressed the issue as to whether consortium of Rs.40,000/- is onlypayable as spousal consortium. The judgment of Pranay Sethi cannotbe read to mean that it lays down the proposition that the consortium isFpayable only to the wife.

39. The Three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance CompanyLtd. (Supra) has categorically laid down that apart from spousalconsortium, parental and filial consortium is payable. We feel ourselvesbound by the above judgment of Three Judge Bench. We, thus, cannotGaccept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that theamount of consortium awarded to each of the claimants is not sustainable.

40. We, thus, found the impugned judgments of the High Courtawarding consortium to each of the claimants in accordance with lawwhich does not warrant any interference in this appeal. We, however, H

accept the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that there isno justification for award of compensation under separate head ‘loss oflove and affection’. The appeal filed by the appellant deserves to beallowed insofar as the award of compensation under the head ‘loss oflove and affection’.

41. We may also notice Three-Judge Bench judgment of this Courtrelied by learned counsel for the appellant i.e. Sangita Arya and othersversus Oriental Insurance Company ltd. and others, (2020) SCCOnline 513. Counsel for the appellant submits that this Court has grantedonly Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’ which is an indication that‘consortium’ cannot be granted to children. In the above case, MotorAccident Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- to the widow towardsloss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- to the minor daughter towards ‘lossof love and affection’. The High Court has reduced the amount ofconsortium from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Paragraph 16 of the judgmentis to the following effect: - “16. The consortium payable to the widow was reduced by theHigh Court from Rs. 20,000 (as awarded by the MACT) toRs.10,000; the amount awarded towards loss of love and affectionto the minor daughters was reduced from Rs.10,000 to Rs. 5,000.However, the amount of Rs. 5,000 awarded by the MACTtowards funeral expenses was maintained.”

42. This Court in the above case confined its consideration towardsthe income of the deceased and there was neither any claim nor anyconsideration that the consortium should have been paid to other legalheirs also. There being no claim for payment of consortium to otherlegal heirs, this Court awarded Rs.40,000/- towards consortium. No suchratio can be deciphered from the above judgment that this Court heldthat consortium is only payable as a spousal consortium and consortiumis not payable to children and parents.

43. It is relevant to notice the judgment of this Court in UnitedIndia Insurance Ltd. which was delivered shortly after the aboveThree-Judge Bench judgment of Sangeeta Arya specifically laid downthat both spousal and parental consortium are payable which judgmentwe have already noticed above.

44. We may also notice one more Three-Judge Bench judgmentof this Court in Civil Appeal No.2885 of 2020, M.H.Uma Maheshwariand others versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. decided on A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A12.06.2020. In the above case, the Tribunal had granted the amount ofRs.One Lakh towards loss of consortium to the wife and Rs.Three Lakhsfor all the appellants towards loss of love and affection. The High Courtin the above case had reduced the amount of compensation in the appealfiled by the Insurance Company. The High Court held that by awardingthe amount of Rs. One Lakh towards loss of consortium to the wife,BTribunal had committed error while awarding Rs.One Lakh to the firstappellant towards the head of ‘loss of love and affection’. Allowing theappeal filed by the claimant, this Court maintained the order of MACT.

45. In the above judgment although rendered by Three-JudgeBench, there was no challenge to award of compensation of Rs.OneCLakh towards the consortium and Rs.Three Lakhs towards the loss oflove and affection. The appeal was filed only by the claimants and notby the Insurance Company. The Court did not pronounce on thecorrectness of the amount awarded under the head ‘loss of love andaffection’.D46. We may also notice the additional submission advanced inCivil Appeal No. 3099/2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 8250 of2020), Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt.Rinku Devi& Ors. As noted above, we have taken the view that the order of theHigh Court awarding compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’at the rate of Rs.50,000/- to each of the claimants is unjustified which isEbeing set aside in this appeal. We, further, in the above appeal also setaside the directions of the High Court in paragraph 9 by which statutoryamount along with interest accrued thereon was directed to be depositedin AASRA fund.

47. In result, all the appeals are partly allowed. The award ofFcompensation under the conventional head ‘loss of love and affection’ isset aside. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunals shall recompute theamount payable and take further steps in accordance with law.

48. All the appeals are partly allowed accordingly. No costs.

GAnkit Gyan

Appeals partly allowed.

H