Holding

Future Prospects must be calculated at 40% of the deceased's income, the 1/3 deduction for personal expenses is correct, the father and sister are valid dependents, and additional amounts for loss of estate and filial consortium are awarded, with the insurer and driver jointly liable for the total compensation.

Summary

The deceased, a 24‑year‑old self‑employed motorcyclist, was killed when his bike was struck by a car driven by respondent No.3. The father and sister of the deceased filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation, which was initially awarded by the MACT at Rs.3,39,208. The Punjab & Haryana High Court enhanced the award to Rs.14,21,000, applying a 50% multiplier for future prospects and treating the father and sister as dependents. The insurer challenged the award, arguing that the future‑prospects percentage should be 40% per the Pranay Sethi judgment, that the deduction for personal expenses should be ½, and that the dependents were not entitled to compensation. The Supreme Court, relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, modified the future‑prospects award to 40% of income, affirmed the 1/3 deduction, recognized the father and sister as dependents, and added compensation for loss of estate and filial consortium. Consequently, the total compensation was fixed at Rs.14,25,600 with interest, and the insurer and respondent No.3 were held jointly and severally liable, with the insurer entitled to recover half from the driver. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Issues considered

The appropriate percentage for Future Prospects under the Motor Vehicles Act in light of the Pranay Sethi judgment
Whether the deduction from the deceased's income should be one‑third or one‑half for personal expenses
Whether the father and sister qualify as dependents of a bachelor deceased under the Act
The correct quantum for funeral expenses and loss of love and affection
The entitlement to compensation under loss of estate and loss of consortium heads

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 142
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 166

Subjects

Motor Vehicles ActCompensationFuture ProspectsLoss of ConsortiumLoss of EstateFilial ConsortiumDependentsInsurance LiabilityArticle 142

Judgment

664 [2018] REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 11 S.C.R. 664 [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018)
B SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
[R. F. NARIMAN AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation under – Various
heads – Person died in an accident when the motor cycle driven by
him was hit by a car driven by respondent no.3 – MACT granted
C
Rs.3,39,208/- with 7% interest as compensation to respondent nos.
1 and 2, father and sister of the deceased – High Court granted
Rs.14,21,000/- with interest @ 9% – Challenged by appellant-
Insurance Company – Held: High Court’s finding regarding income
of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- p.m. is correct – High Court
D correctly considered respondent nos.1 and 2 to be dependents of
the deceased, and made a deduction of 1/3 rd towards personal
expenses of the deceased – Judgment of the High Court affirmed
on this count – Amount awarded by the High Court towards loss of
love and affection is also maintained – However, since deceased
was 24 years old at the time of the accident, hence, in view of decision
E
of Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case, future Prospects is awarded
at 40% of the actual income of the deceased, instead of 50% as
awarded by the High Court – Further, also in view of decision in
Pranay Sethi case, compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral
expenses decreased to Rs.15,000/- – Though neither MACT nor
F High Court awarded any compensation to respondent nos.1 and 2
under “Loss of Estate”, in exercise of power u/Art.142 and in the
interests of justice, Rs.15,000/- awarded under this head – Further,
respondent nos.1 and 2 also awarded Rs. 40,000/- each for loss of
“Filial Consortium” – Respondent nos.1 and 2 entitled to total
compensation of Rs.14,25,600/- with interest @ 12% p.a.– Appellant
G
and respondent no. 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation – Constitution of India – Art.142.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Beneficial Legislation – Purpose
of – Discussed.
H
664
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NANU RAM 665
ALIAS CHUHRU RAM & ORS.

Words & Phrases – “Consortium” – Meaning of – Discussed. A
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 With respect to the issue of Future Prospects,
a Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi case held that
in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, and
was below 40 years of age, an addition of 40% of the established B
income should be granted towards Future Prospects. Future
Prospects are to be awarded on the basis of: (i) the nature of the
deceased’s employment; and (ii) the age of the deceased. The
MACT as well as the High Court assessed the income of the
deceased on the basis of the minimum wage of an unskilled C
worker. The nature of his employment being taken as a self-
employed person. The High Court took his income to be Rs.6,000,
which is marginally above the minimum wage of an unskilled
worker at Rs.5,342. This finding is not being interfered with. The
deceased was 24 years old at the time of the accident. Hence,
Future Prospects ought to have been awarded at 40% of the actual D
income of the deceased, instead of 50% as awarded by the High
Court. Hence, the judgment of the High Court on this issue is
modified to that extent. [Paras 8.1 and 8.3] [671-F-H; 672-B-C, G]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16
SCC 680 – followed. E

1.2 The deceased was a bachelor, whose mother had pre-
deceased him. The deceased was living in a village with his father
who was about 65 years old, and respondent no.2- an unmarried
sister. The deceased was contributing a part of his meagre income
to the family for their sustenance and survival. Hence, they would F
be entitled to compensation as his dependents. The High Court
correctly considered them to be dependents of the deceased,
and made a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the
deceased. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, affirmed
on this count. [Para 8.2, 8.4] [673-B; 672-F] G
1.3 As per the judgment in Pranay Sethi case the
compensation of Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses is
decreased to Rs.15,000. The amount awarded by the High Court
towards loss of love and affection is, however, maintained. [Para
8.5] [673-C, F-G]
H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A 1.4 The MACT as well as the High Court did not award any
compensation with respect to Loss of Consortium and Loss of
Estate, which are the other conventional heads under which
compensation is awarded in the event of death, as recognized in
the Pranay Sethi case. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and
welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award
B
“just compensation”, irrespective of whether any plea in that
behalf was raised by the Claimant. In exercise of power under
Article 142, and in the interests of justice, it is deemed appropriate
to award an amount of Rs. 15,000 towards Loss of Estate to
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. [Para 8.6] [673-G-H; 674-A-B]
C 1.5 In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term
which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’,
and ‘filial consortium’. The right to consortium would include
the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection
of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a
D spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased
spouse. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows
compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company,
society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation”. Parental consortium is granted to the child
E upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”.
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in
the case of an accidental death of a child. Consortium is a special
prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of
F actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have
recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the
economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the
death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to
be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death
of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation
G for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the
deceased child. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation
aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases
of genuine claims. The amount of compensation to be awarded as

H
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NANU RAM 667
ALIAS CHUHRU RAM & ORS.

consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding A
compensation under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay
Sethi case. In the present case, it is deemed appropriate to award
the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000
each for loss of Filial Consortium. [Paras 8.7] [674-C-G; 675-A-B]
1.6 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to the total B
compensation of Rs.14,25,600/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.
from the date of filing of the Claim petition till payment. Out of
the amount awarded, Respondent No.1 is entitled to 60% while
Respondent No.2 shall be granted 40% alongwith Interest. The
Appellant-Insurance Company and Respondent No. 3 are held
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded. C
Insurance Company will pay the full amount of compensation
awarded to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and can recover 50% of the
amount from Respondent No. 3. [Paras 9, 10] [675--E; 676-D-F]
Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC
54: [2013] 5 SCR 961; Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh D
& Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors 2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj);
Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & 6 Ors. 2014
(3) UC 1687; Lakshman and Ors. v. Susheela Chand
Choudhary & Ors (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570 (DB) –
referred to. E
Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979) – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2017) 16 SCC 680 followed Para 1
F
[2013] 5 SCR 961 referred to Para 8.7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9581
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2017 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 6943 of 2015 G
Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Garvesh Kabra, Vikas Verma, Kaushal
Yadav, Advs. for the appearing parties.

H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
1. This Special Leave Petition has been filed by the Insurance
Company to challenge the compensation awarded on certain counts by
the Punjab & Haryana High Court in FAO No. 6943 of 2015 dated
B 27.09.2017, to be contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.1
2. The factual matrix of the present case, briefly stated, are as
under:
On 01.12.2013, the deceased was riding his motorcycle
C (Registration No. HR-71B-7681) from Ambli Village to Arjun Majra
Village. A relative of the deceased –Mr. Rakesh Kumar was following
him on a separate motorcycle on the Sadhaura-Naraingarh Road. A
Renault car bearing Registration No. HR-02-AB-4646 driven by
Respondent No.3, came from the side, and hit the motorcycle driven by
D the deceased. The accident was witnessed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar.
As a result of the accident, the deceased fell and sustained multiple
injuries. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Naraingarh from
where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. On 02.12.2013 the victim
was taken to Government Hospital, Panchkula where the doctors declared
him dead.
E
On the same day, F.I.R. No. 337 was registered at Police Station,
Naraingarh on the statement of Mr. Rakesh Kumar who was an eye-
witness to the accident.
3. The father, brother, and sister of the deceased filed Claim
Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the
F Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar (“hereinafter referred
to as MACT”) praying for compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 along with
Interest from the date of the accident till the date of realization.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the eye-witness was examined before the
MACT. He deposed stated that the accident occurred due to the rash
G and negligent driving of Respondent No. 3.
The MACT after considering the evidence placed on record, came
to the finding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent
driving of Respondent No. 3.

1
H (2017) 16 SCC 680
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NANU RAM 669
ALIAS CHUHRU RAM & ORS. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

The deceased was 24 years old, and was engaged in the business A
of manufacturing Namkeen products. The Claimants contended that the
income of the deceased was Rs. 15,000 per month. However, they were
unable to produce evidence of the income of the deceased. The MACT
took the income of the deceased to be that of an unskilled worker i.e.
Rs. 5,342 per month on the basis of the Notification dated 13.08.2013
B
issued by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana prescribing minimum wages
for different categories of work.
The MACT awarded compensation to the family of the deceased
as follows:
Head Compensation awarded C
i. Income: Rs. 5,432 per month
ii. Deduction towards personal expenses:
Rs. 1780 (1/3r d of income)
iii. Multiplier: 7 (as per the age of the father)
iv. Loss of future income : Rs. 2,99,208 D
[i.e. (5432 – 1780) x 12x7]
v. Loss of love and affection: Rs. 25,000
vi. Funeral Expenses: Rs. 15,000

Total Compensation awarded: Rs. 3,39,208 with interest @ 7% from the E
date of the claim until realization and costs.

The MACT did not award any compensation to the brother of the
deceased, as he could not be considered to be a dependent. Compensation
was awarded to the aged father and the unmarried sister of the deceased, F
who were held to be dependents.
The Insurance Company and the driver of the vehicle – Respondent
No. 3 both were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation.
4. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – i.e. the father and sister of the G
deceased filed an Appeal against the order of the MACT before the
Punjab and Haryana High Court praying for enhancement of
compensation.

H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A The High Court held that the facts relating to the accident were
admitted and proved before the MACT. It was established that the
deceased had died as a result of the rash and negligent driving of
Respondent No. 3.
The High Court found that the MACT had used the wrong principle
B for application of the multiplier. The multiplier ought to have been taken
on the basis of the age of the deceased, and not of his father.
The High Court re-assessed the compensation as follows:
Head Compensation awarded

C i. Income (as per minimum wages): Rs. 6,000 per month
ii. Future prospects at 50% of (i): Rs. 3,000 per month
iii. Total Income: Rs. 9,000
iv. Deduction of personal expenses: Rs. 3,000 (i.e. 1/3rd of
total income)
D
v. Multiplier: 18 (as per age of
deceased)
vi. Loss of future income: Rs. 12,96,000 [i.e. (9,000
– 3,000) x 12 x 18]
E vii. Loss of love and affection: Rs. 1,00,000 (i.e. Rs.
50,000 each)
viii.Funeral expenses: Rs. 25,000
Total Compensation awarded: Rs. 14,21,000 with interest
F @ 9% from the date of
filing the claim petition till
realization.
The amount was held to be payable jointly and severally by the
Appellant – Insurance Company and Respondent No. 3.
G 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the High Court, the Insurance
Company filed the present S.L.P. before this Court, praying for setting-
aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, and perused
the record.
H
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NANU RAM 671
ALIAS CHUHRU RAM & ORS. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

The principal grounds on which the S.L.P. has been filed by the A
Insurance Company are:
i. The High Court has erroneously awarded 50% towards uture
Prospects, even though as per the judgment of this Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.2only 40%
could have been awarded. B
ii. The deduction of the income of the deceased ought to have
been made at ½, and not at 1/3rd, as he was a bachelor.
iii. The minimum wages of the deceased ought to have been
taken at Rs. 5,341 and not Rs. 6,000 as that was the prevailing
rate of minimum wages in Haryana at the time of the accident. C

iv. The father and sister of the deceased could not be considered
as dependants, and were not entitled to compensation. In the
case of death of a bachelor, only the mother could be
considered to be a dependant.
D
v. The grant of Rs. 1,00,000 on account of loss of love and
affection, and Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses is
erroneous.
It was contended that only Rs. 30,000 could have been
awarded as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra).
E
7. The dependents of the deceased refuted the grounds raised by
the Insurance company, and reiterated their claim for enhanced
compensation.
8. The grounds of challenge by the Insurance Company are dealt
with seriatim. F
8.1. With respect to the issue of Future Prospects, a Constitution
Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that in case the
deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, and was below 40
years of age, an addition of 40% of the established income should be
granted towards Future Prospects. G
Future Prospects are to be awarded on the basis of:
i. the nature of the deceased’s employment; and
ii. the age of the deceased.
2
(2017) 16 SCC 680 H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A In the present case, it is claimed by the family of the deceased
that he was engaged in making namkeen, and was earning a monthly
income of about Rs. 15,000 per month. However, no evidence was
brought on record to establish the same. The MACT as well as the High
Court assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum
wage of an unskilled worker. The nature of his employment being taken
B
as a self-employed person.
The deceased was 24 years old at the time of the accident. Hence,
future Prospects ought to have been awarded at 40% of the actual income
of the deceased, instead of 50% as awarded by the High Court.
C Hence, the judgment of the High Court on this issue is modified to
that extent.
8.2. With respect to the issue of deduction from the income of the
deceased, the Insurance Company contended that the deduction ought
to have been ½, and not 1/3rd, since the deceased was a bachelor.
D This issue has been dealt with in paragraph 32 of the judgment in
Sarla Verma (supra) wherein this Court took the view that where the
family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the
deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number
of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
E expenses may be restricted to one-third, as contribution to the family
will be taken as two-third.
Considering that the deceased was living in a village, where he
was residing with his aged father who was about 65 years old, and
Respondent No. 2 - an unmarried sister, the High Court correctly
F considered them to be dependents of the deceased, and made a deduction
of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased.
The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, affirmed on this
count.
8.3. With respect to the income of the deceased, as the family
G could not produce any evidence to show that the income of the deceased
was Rs. 15,000 per month, as claimed, the High Court took his income
to be Rs. 6,000, which is marginally above the minimum wage of an
unskilled worker at Rs. 5,342.
This finding is also not being interfered with.
H
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NANU RAM 673
ALIAS CHUHRU RAM & ORS. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

8.4. The Insurance Company has submitted that the father and A
the sister of the deceased could not be treated as dependents, and it is
only a mother who can be dependent of her son. This contention deserves
to be repelled. The deceased was a bachelor, whose mother had pre-
deceased him. The deceased’s father was about 65 years old, and an
unmarried sister. The deceased was contributing a part of his meagre
B
income to the family for their sustenance and survival. Hence, they would
be entitled to compensation as his dependents.
8.5. The Insurance Company has contended that the High Court
had wrongly awarded Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection,
and Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses.
C
The judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has set out
the various amounts to be awarded as compensation under the
conventional heads in case of death. The relevant extract of the judgment
is reproduced herein below :
“Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems D
to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should
be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively.
The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable
principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-
centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount E
that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage
basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at
the rate of 10% in a span of three years.”
(Emphasis supplied)
F
As per the afore-said judgment, the compensation of Rs. 25,000
towards funeral expenses is decreased to Rs.15,000.
The amount awarded by the High Court towards loss of love and
affection is, however, maintained.
8.6 The MACT as well as the High Court have not awarded any G
compensation with respect to Loss of Consortium and Loss of Estate,
which are the other conventional heads under which compensation is
awarded in the event of death, as recognized by the Constitution Bench
in Pranay Sethi (supra).
H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation.
The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award “just compensation”,
irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the Claimant.
In exercise of our power under Article 142, and in the interests of
justice, we deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs. 15,000 towards
B Loss of Estate to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra)
dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded
in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which
C encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and ‘filial
consortium’.
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help,
comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss
to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations
D with the deceased spouse.3
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the
relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving
spouse for loss of “company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of
the other in every conjugal relation.”4
E
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.”
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the
case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death
F
of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the
deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during
their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship
and their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about
G the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-
over have recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds
the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the
3
Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54
4
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (5th ed. 1979)
H
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NANU RAM 675
ALIAS CHUHRU RAM & ORS. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded A
compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The
amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love,
affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing
relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case B
where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter,
the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head
of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents
in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. C
5
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count .
However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which
compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will
be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under ‘Loss of D
Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father
and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of
Filial Consortium.
E
9. In light of the above mentioned discussion, Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 are entitled to the following amounts :-
Head Compensation awarded
i. Income: Rs. 6,000
ii. Future Prospects: Rs. 2,400 (i.e. 40% of the F
income)
iii. Deduction towards personal Rs. 2,800 [i.e. 1/3rd of
expenditure: (Rs.6,000 + Rs.2,400)

G
5
Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors.
2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj):
Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
2014 (3) UC 1687;
Karnataka High Court in Lakshman and Ors. v. Susheela Chand Choudhary & Ors
(1996) 3 Kant LJ 570 (DB)
H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A iv. Total Income: Rs. 5,600 [i.e. 2/3rd of
(Rs.6,000 + Rs.2,400]
v. Multiplier: 18
vi. Loss of future income: Rs. 12,09,600 (Rs.5,600 x 12
x 18)
B
vii. Loss of love and affection: Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. 50,000 each)
viii. Funeral expenses: Rs. 15,000
ix. Loss of estate: Rs. 15,000
x. Loss of Filial Consortium: Rs. 80,000 (Rs. 40,000 payable
C
to each of Respondent Nos.1
and 2)
Total compensation awarded: Rs. 14,25,600 alongwith
Interest @ 12% p.a. from the
date of filing of the Claim
D
petition till payment.
Out of the amount awarded, Respondent No.1 is entitled to 60%
while Respondent No.2 shall be granted 40% alongwith Interest as
specified above.
E 10. The Insurance Company and Respondent No. 3 are held jointly
and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded.
The Appellant – Insurance Company will pay the full amount of
compensation awarded hereinabove to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and
can recover 50% of the amount from Respondent No. 3.
F 11. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Divya Pandey Appeal disposed of.

G

H