The Telangana High Court recently disallowed compensation under the head of parental consortium to a 50 years old claimant in a Motor accident death case, stating that he was not a "child".
Brief Facts of the Case
The appeal was filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The claim was made for Rs. 6,00,000/- and the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1,96,000/- only.
The deceased was the mother of the claimant. It was contended in the claim petition that the deceased used to earn Rs. 15,000/- by doing vegetable business and died in the accident on 31.03.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent.
The counsel for appellant among many grounds contended that the appellant was entitled for compensation towards parental consortium. But the 2nd respondent-insurance company contended that the claimant was not entitled for parental consortium as he was not a child. In support of the contentions, the counsel for 2nd Respondent relied on Apex Court decision in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & others (2018).
Finding of the Court
Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy observed that the claimant is aged 50 years and as such, he cannot be entitled for parental consortium.
The Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance case (supra) has observed the following for right to parental consortium
"Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act."
On this ground, the compensation under the head of parental consortium was denied but the appeal was allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs. 4,06,400/- under other heads with costs and interests at the rate of 7.5% p.a.
Case Title: MADEENAM RAJU v. B.SAINATH AND ANOTHER
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 81