Children Who Lose Parents To Motor Accident Entitled To Parental Consortium: Gauhati High Court Enhances Award To ₹8.81 Lakh
The Gauhati High Court enhanced the accident compensation granted to the family of the deceased to ₹8.81 Lakh observing that the deceased's two children were entitled to parental compensation which had not been granted by the motor accident tribunal. Justice Kaushik Goswami referred to Supreme Court's decision in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors...
The Gauhati High Court enhanced the accident compensation granted to the family of the deceased to ₹8.81 Lakh observing that the deceased's two children were entitled to parental compensation which had not been granted by the motor accident tribunal.
Justice Kaushik Goswami referred to Supreme Court's decision in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors (2008) where apex court had held that parental consortium is to be awarded to children who lose their parent in a motor vehicle accident.
The Apex Court further explained that parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents and that the amount of compensation under the said head is to be governed by the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017).
“In view of the aforesaid settled position, and since the learned Tribunal did not award any amount towards parental consortium to the two sons of the deceased, the Judgment and Award dated 22.06.2016 requires modification to that extent. The claimants would accordingly be entitled to compensation towards spousal consortium in favour of the widow and parental consortium in favour of the two sons.”
The observation came in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC)Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in an MAC Case. The appellants sought enhancement of the compensation of ₹5.89 lakh, together with interest at 6% per annum, awarded by the Tribunal.
The claim petition had been filed by the widow of deceased Bani Deka along with his two sons, Raju Deka and Kaju Deka, seeking compensation for his death in a road traffic accident. The Tribunal had awarded ₹5.04 lakh towards loss of dependency, ₹25,000 towards funeral expenses, ₹50,000 towards loss of consortium and ₹10,000 towards loss of estate.
The appellants contended that, notwithstanding the law laid down in *Pranay Sethi*, no amount towards future prospects had been assessed or awarded by the Tribunal and that the compensation towards loss of consortium had also not been determined in accordance with the principles laid down therein. It was further submitted that the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at ₹4,500 despite evidence on record establishing his monthly income at ₹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 in accordance with law.
The High Court noted that the deceased was about 44 years old at the time of the accident and was working as a Power Tiller Operator, earning ₹5,000 per month. It found that no amount towards future prospects had been assessed or awarded by the Tribunal.
“In the present case, admittedly, no amount towards future prospects was assessed or awarded by the learned Tribunal. The omission, therefore, warrants correction in terms of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).”
Since the deceased was self-employed and was aged 44 years, the Court held that the claimants were entitled to an addition of 25% of the established income towards future prospects.
“Having regard to the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), since the deceased was self-employed and was aged 44 years at the time of the accident; the claimants would be entitled to an addition of 25% of the established income towards future prospects. Accordingly, taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/-, his monthly income after addition of 25% towards future prospects would work out to Rs. 6,250/-.”
The annual income was accordingly worked out at ₹75,000. After deducting one-third towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the annual contribution to the family was assessed at ₹50,000. Applying the multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency was worked out at ₹7 lakh.
On loss of consortium, the High Court noted that although the deceased was survived by his wife and two sons, all of whom were claimants before the Tribunal, compensation had been awarded only towards the spousal consortium.
“It appears that the deceased was survived by his wife and two sons, all of whom were claimants before the learned Tribunal. However, the Tribunal awarded compensation only towards spousal consortium and did not award parental consortium to the two sons.”
The Court therefore held that the award required modification to that extent and granted consortium to all three claimants.
“Accordingly, applying the amount of Rs. 40,000/- prescribed in Pranay Sethi (supra), as enhanced in accordance with the principle of periodic enhancement laid down therein, the wife and the two sons of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium.”
The High Court ultimately assessed ₹7 lakh towards loss of dependency, ₹48,400 towards spousal consortium, ₹96,800 towards parental consortium for the two sons, ₹18,150 towards funeral expenditure and ₹18,150 towards loss of estate, taking the total compensation to ₹8,81,500.
“Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 8,81,500/- together with interest at the rate and from the date as awarded by the learned Tribunal.”
The Tribunal's award was modified accordingly. Since the amount originally awarded had already been deposited and received by the claimants, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit and pay the balance enhanced amount within six weeks.
Case No.: MACApp. 246/2016
Case Title: Smt Putul Deka & Ors. v. Sri Kamal Rajbongshi & Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 162