The Supreme Court has enhanced the motor accident compensation payable to the legal heirs of a deceased man from Rs. 11,00,672 to Rs. 12,47,272, holding that his wife and three children were each entitled to compensation under the head of consortium.
A Bench comprising Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment in Sameem Begum & Ors. v. K. Venkat Swamy & Anr., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18553 of 2023. The judgment was pronounced on August 14, 2026.
The case arose from a fatal motor accident that occurred on June 23, 2012, at Malkajgiri. The deceased, Shaik Janimiya, was walking when a car bearing registration number AP-29-AK-3717, allegedly being driven rashly, negligently and at a high speed, struck him.
Shaik suffered injuries and subsequently died while undergoing treatment at Raghavendra Hospital. A criminal case was registered against the driver, and his wife and three children, being his legal heirs and representatives, filed a claim seeking Rs. 9 lakh as compensation.
At the time of the accident, the deceased was 48 years old and was working as a private security personnel. His family claimed that he was earning approximately Rs. 9,000 per month.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,44,000, along with interest at 7.5% per annum. The Telangana High Court subsequently enhanced the compensation to Rs. 11,00,672, while retaining the interest rate at 7.5%.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants challenged, among other things, the assessment of the deceased's monthly income and the amount awarded towards parental consortium to the children.
Although the Court had initially issued notice on the limited question of parental consortium, it decided to examine the issue comprehensively, including both spousal and parental consortium.
The Court noted that the Tribunal had relied upon the testimony of the Director of the deceased's employer, who stated that the deceased's monthly salary was Rs. 7,000. The Supreme Court therefore found no error in the Tribunal's assessment of his income at Rs. 7,000 per month.
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions, including Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender, while explaining the rights of legal representatives under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Court reiterated that the expression “legal representative” covers persons entitled to represent the estate of the deceased and that the absence of actual financial dependency does not by itself extinguish the right of a legal representative to maintain a compensation claim.
Referring to the earlier decisions, the Court emphasized that all legal representatives can maintain a claim petition, although the quantum under particular heads may depend upon the circumstances and extent of dependency.
The Bench undertook an extensive examination of the law relating to consortium.
The Court noted that consortium is a recognised head of compensation in motor accident claims and forms part of the conventional compensation payable to eligible family members. It referred to decisions including Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram.
The judgment explained that spousal consortium concerns the loss suffered by a surviving spouse due to the loss of the companionship, affection, assistance and other aspects of the marital relationship.
Parental consortium, on the other hand, compensates children for the premature loss of parental care, protection, affection, guidance, society and training.
The Court also referred to filial consortium, which concerns the loss suffered by parents following the accidental death of a child.
In the present case, the first appellant was the wife of the deceased, while appellants 2 to 4 were his sons and daughter. All three children were between 18 and 21 years of age.
The Supreme Court observed that the children were dependants of the deceased and were legally entitled to be treated as his legal representatives and dependants for the purpose of parental consortium.
The Court found that the Tribunal had committed a manifest error by awarding only Rs. 5,000 to the wife and by failing to award any parental consortium to the children.
The High Court, while enhancing the overall compensation, had also failed to properly award the amount payable under consortium in accordance with the applicable law.
Applying the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance, the Supreme Court held that each of the four claimants was entitled to Rs. 40,000 under the head of consortium.
The amount was then enhanced by 10%, in accordance with the principle laid down in Pranay Sethi that the conventional amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years.
Consequently, each claimant became entitled to Rs. 48,400 as consortium:
Wife: Rs. 48,400 as spousal consortium
Child 1: Rs. 48,400 as parental consortium
Child 2: Rs. 48,400 as parental consortium
Child 3: Rs. 48,400 as parental consortium
The total amount under consortium therefore came to Rs. 1,93,600.
The Court retained the loss of dependency calculated by the High Court at Rs. 10,23,672.
It further increased the amounts awarded under funeral expenses and loss of estate from Rs. 10,000 each to Rs. 15,000 each.
The final calculation was:
| Head of Compensation | Amount |
|---|---|
| Loss of Dependency | Rs. 10,23,672 |
| Spousal Consortium | Rs. 48,400 |
| Parental Consortium for Three Children | Rs. 1,45,200 |
| Funeral Expenses | Rs. 15,000 |
| Loss of Estate | Rs. 15,000 |
| Total Compensation | Rs. 12,47,272 |
Since the High Court had already awarded Rs. 11,00,672, the Supreme Court directed payment of an additional Rs. 1,46,600 to the claimants.
The additional amount will carry 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation.
The Insurance Company has been directed to deposit the additional amount along with applicable interest before the concerned Tribunal within six weeks.
After the amount is deposited, the claimants will be entitled to receive it in equal proportions. The Tribunal has been directed to release the respective amounts directly into the bank accounts of the appellants after completing the required verification process.
The Supreme Court accordingly modified the judgment and award of the Telangana High Court and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 12,47,272.
Representation:-
For Petitioner(s):- Mr. Vamsikrishna Thota Adv., Mr. T. Vishwarupa Chary Adv., Mr. Shaurya Mishra Adv., Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy AOR
For Respondent(s):- Mr. Divyansh Mishra Adv., Mr. Gopal Singh AOR
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy