Senior Citizen Offsprings Of 94-Yr-Old Who Died In Road Accident Entitled To Compensation For 'Loss Of Parental Consortium': Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently considered the issue as to whether the children of a nonagenarian road accident victim, who are themselves senior citizens, would be entitled to compensation for 'Loss of Parental Consortium'. Noting that the Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs. 40,000/- under the head 'Loss of Love and Affection', which was challenged by the counsels for the Insurance Company on the ground that no amount could have been granted under that head since the claimants of the deceased were all senior citizens themselves, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran observed, "I am afraid that this argument is too farfetched to be even countenanced because, whatever be the age of the father or the children, their relationship continues till the end; and for every father, his offsprings are always children". Holding that the Tribunal did not err in granting compensation to the claimants under the head 'Loss of Love and Affection', although it should have actually been 'Loss of Consortium', the Court went on to add, "When consortium becomes payable to children, it does not mean that it will be only eligible to a girl or boy under the age of 14, as has now been attempted to be argued by the learned Senior Counsel, but even to a person much beyond that age, if the premature death of his/her father/mother is on account of a road accident". The factual matrix reveals that the deceased nonagenarian had been knocked down by a vehicle that was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, and had succumbed to his grievous injuries. The children of the deceased had thereafter, filed a petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,250/-. The Tribunal however, only allowed compensation to the extent of Rs.5,35,260/-. This has been challenged before the High Court by the children of the deceased on the one hand pointing it to be inadequate, and the Insurance Company on the other hand, assailing it to be too high an amount on the other hand in the two petitions. It was argued by the counsels for the Insurance Company that since the deceased was 94 years at the time of the accident, it would be impossible to believe that he was earning anything and no notional income could thus be reckoned in his favour. The counsels also placed reliance on the Apex Court decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), and Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018), wherein it had been declared that only a 'child' would be entitled to compensation for 'Loss of Consortium' of a father, who was killed prematurely in an accident, and not senior citizens. The counsels also stressed that no amount of On the other hand, it was argued by the counsels for the heirs of the deceased that the deceased had been a businessman involved in timber brokering and real estate, with an income of Rs.24,000/- per month, and that the adoption of a mere Rs.5,000/- per month as the notional income of the deceased by the deceased was improper. It was also pointed out that the Tribunal had erred in deducting one half of the notional income towards his personal expenses, and that only one-fourth ought to have been deducted. The counsels argued that this was because the claimants were the legal heirs of the deceased, and were thus, his dependents. It is in this context that the Court discerned that there were three main issues in the case which were firstly, what the notional income to be adopted in favour of the deceased ought to be, secondly, whether the claimants would be entitled to the grant of any amount under 'Loss of Parental Consortium', and lastly, the corollary issue as to whether the Tribunal was correct in having deducted one-half of the notional income of the deceased, towards personal expenses. Notional Income of the DeceasedRegarding the notional income of the deceased person, the Court found that there was no evidence to prove that he was not employed or capable of earning. It therefore ascertained that an income ought to be reckoned in his favour and compensation granted. "...the uncontroverted pleadings on record by the claimants are to the effect that the deceased was a 'Timber Broker-cum-Real Estate businessman' and that he was earning an income of Rs.24,000/- per month. Since the factum of the deceased working in the afore fashion being unassailed, that part certainly will have to be taken into account, while considering the income for the purpose of computing the compensation for 'Loss of Dependency'," the Court observed. The Court was of the considered opinion that the Tribunal ought to have been guided by the standardization postulated by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011), wherein the minimum notional income to be reckoned was ascertained to be Rs. 11,000/- even in case of a person with unascertainable income. Going by the same, the Court observed, "Of...

Senior Citizen Offsprings Of 94-Yr-Old Who Died In Road Accident Entitled To Compensation For 'Loss Of Parental Consortium': Kerala High Court

Navya Benny

Tags