The Supreme Court has reiterated that a legal representative of a person killed in a motor accident can maintain a claim for compensation even if the particular legal representative was not financially dependent on the deceased.

The Court, relying on its earlier decisions, emphasised that “liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the legal representative concerned.”

“Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person because of a motor vehicle accident has a remedy for realisation of compensation to be paid under different heads.”, observed the bench of Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice NV Anjaria. The Court stated that legal representatives who are not dependants are entitled to claim compensation under heads such as loss of consortium.

The bench was dealing with a claim arising from the death of Shaik Janimiya, who died after being hit by a car while walking in Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, in June 2012. His wife and three children were the claimants.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation of ₹8.44 lakh. The High Court subsequently enhanced it to ₹11,00,672, including ₹10,23,672 towards loss of dependency.

Before the Supreme Court, the claimants sought further enhancement, particularly on the ground that the three children of the deceased were also entitled to compensation for loss of parental consortium.

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Anjaria held that actual financial dependency is not a prerequisite for claiming consortium.

The Court referred to Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another (2007) 10 SCC 643, where it was “expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the legal representative concerned…”. It was also held in the said judgment that "devolution of the deceased's estate, rather than actual financial dependency, was the relevant consideration for determining whether the claim was maintainable."

The judgment also relied on National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender, which dealt with claims by major, married and earning sons of a deceased person. The Court in that case held that such persons could still qualify as legal representatives under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, although the quantum of compensation could depend on the extent of their dependency

The Bench also referred to its earlier ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, which held that a legal representative ordinarily means a person who legally represents the estate of the deceased or upon whom the estate devolves.

Importantly, the Court observed that every legal representative who suffers on account of a death caused by a motor accident has a remedy for recovery of compensation under the different heads recognised in law.

"In other words, when all such persons covered within the expression “legal representative” are entitled to maintain the compensation petition and seek compensation for loss of life of the victim of a motor accident, by virtue of that very principle and in view of the concept of consortium, it is one of the heads of compensation which becomes payable in motor accident claim cases."

Children entitled to parental consortium

The Court's ruling also addressed the separate head of consortium, holding that it is an important component of just compensation.

The Bench explained that consortium is not confined to the surviving spouse. It includes spousal, parental and filial consortium. Parental consortium compensates a child for the loss of parental aid, protection, affection, guidance, society and training following the premature death of a parent.

In the present case, the deceased's wife was entitled to spousal consortium, while his three children, aged between 18 and 21, were entitled to parental consortium. The Court found that the Claims Tribunal had committed a “manifest error” by awarding only Rs 5,000 to the wife and nothing to the children under this head

Applying the law, the Court observed:

“In the present case, appellant No. 1 is the wife whereas appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons and the daughter of the deceased. All the children are aged between 18 and 21 years. They would be legitimately and legally entitled to amount of compensation under the head of consortium, spousal as well as parental. It was never in dispute that appellant Nos. 2 to 4 were dependants of the deceased. Appellant Nos. 2 to 4, therefore, ought to have been considered as legal representatives and dependants of the deceased to be entitled to parental consortium.”

The Court relied upon Pranay Sethi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 16 SCC 680, which fixed ₹40,000 as the amount for loss of consortium and directed that the conventional amounts be enhanced by 10% every three years.

Applying the enhancement, the Court determined the consortium amount at ₹48,400 for each claimant.

Accordingly, the wife was awarded ₹48,400 towards spousal consortium, while each of the two sons and the daughter was awarded ₹48,400 towards parental consortium.

“The High Court awarded total Rs. 11,00,672/- under different heads. As per the above calculation, the total amount of compensation now arrived at, by adding the consortium figures would come to Rs. 12,47,272/-. The additional amount of Rs. 1,46,600/- shall be payable with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit with the Tribunal concerned, the above additional amount with interest as provided, within six weeks.”, the Court held.

The appeal was allowed in the aforesaid terms.

Cause Title: SAMEEM BEGUM AND OTHERS VERSUS K. VENKAT SWAMY AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 809

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Vamsikrishna Thota, Adv. Mr. T. Vishwarupa Chary, Adv. Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR