-
by sayum
17 February 2026 8:32 AM
“Even Without Appeal by Claimant, Court Can Award Just Compensation”, - In a judgment Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that loss of consortium is not limited to spousal relationships and must also be awarded to children and parents. The Court also reiterated that just compensation must be granted, even if the claimant has not filed an appeal for enhancement.
“The loss of consortium is not restricted to the wife alone but has to be awarded to the children and parents,” observed a Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, relying on the precedent in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Somwati.
Fatal Motorcycle Accident Left Behind Husband and Two Children; Tribunal Fixed Income at ₹7,000
The deceased woman, a pillion rider, succumbed to injuries sustained in a road accident on February 24, 2015. Her husband and two minor children filed a compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, asserting her income as ₹15,000 per month as a coolie.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal accepted a notional income of ₹7,000, deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses assuming two dependents, and awarded ₹13,44,000 for loss of dependency, with other heads taking the total to ₹18,81,966.
The insurance company appealed to the High Court, challenging both the liability and quantum. The High Court upheld the insurer’s liability but made key modifications, including deleting the 50% future prospects awarded by the Tribunal.
“Self-Employed Below 40 Entitled to 40% Future Prospects”: SC Corrects High Court’s Error
While the Tribunal had rightly allowed 50% addition for future prospects, the High Court erroneously removed it entirely. The Supreme Court corrected this, holding:
“The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi declared an addition for future prospects... limited to 40% for self-employed persons below the age of 40.”
As the deceased was 35 years old at the time of death, the Court applied a 40% future prospects addition, confirming the use of a multiplier of 16.
“Husband May Still Be Partially Dependent — Deduction for Personal Expenses Reduced to 1/4th”
The High Court and Tribunal had both treated the husband as not dependent, applying a deduction of 1/3rd. However, the Supreme Court reasoned:
“Since there was no employment specified of the husband, it cannot be assumed that he would not have been at least partially dependent... the deduction shall be at 1/4th.”
Accordingly, the loss of dependency was recomputed using the formula ₹8,000 × 12 × 140% × 16 × 3/4 = ₹16,12,800.
“₹40,000 Consortium for Each Child – No Separate Head for Love and Affection”
The Court corrected another error by awarding consortium to the children of the deceased.
“In addition to spousal loss of consortium, children too are entitled at the rate of ₹40,000 each,” the Court held.
Thus, consortium compensation of ₹1,20,000 was awarded for three beneficiaries. The Court removed the ₹1,00,000 previously awarded under the head of “love and affection”, reiterating that such a separate category no longer applies after Pranay Sethi.
The final recalculated compensation included:
₹16,12,800 for loss of dependency
₹1,20,000 for loss of consortium
₹21,966 for medical expenses
₹15,000 each for funeral and loss of estate
Total compensation: ₹17,84,766
“Just Compensation Must Prevail — Appeal by Claimant Not Necessary for Modification”
While the claimants had not appealed the Tribunal’s award, the Court exercised its power to ensure fairness:
“We are of the opinion that what has been enhanced is only the pro-rata amounts under the conventional heads… this exercise is based on the trite principle that what is to be awarded is ‘just compensation’.”
The Bench clarified that the enhanced total did not exceed the original Tribunal’s award, so no prejudice was caused.
Date of Decision: April 29, 2025
