THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDversusSMT. SOMWATI AND OTHERS

1132                     [2020] REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT   10 S.C.R. 1132              [2020] 10 S.C.R.


 A          THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                                         v.
                        SMT. SOMWATI AND OTHERS
                          (Civil Appeal No. 3093 of 2020)
 B                            SEPTEMBER 07, 2020
            [ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
              Motor Vehicles – Accident – Claims – Compensation –
       Consortium – Appeals filed by Insurance Companies questioning
       the judgments of the High Courts arising out of the award by MACT
 C     with regard to the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants
       under two heads, i.e. ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘loss of love and
       affection’ – The appellants submitted that the amount granted under
       the head ‘loss of love and affection’ is wholly without jurisdiction
       and that National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.
       has only referred to spousal consortium and no other consortium,
 D
       hence, there is no justification for allowing the parental consortium
       and filial consortium – Held: The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi
       has referred to amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the ‘loss of Consortium’
       but the Constitution Bench had not addressed the issue as to whether
       Consortium of Rs. 40,000/- is only payable as a spousal consortium
 E     – The judgment of Pranay Sethi cannot be read to mean that it lays
       down the proposition that the consortium is payable only to the
       wife – Further, the Three Judges Bench in United India Insurance
       Company Ltd. has categorically laid down that apart from spousal
       consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable – It was further
       laid down that ‘loss of love and affection’ is comprehended in ‘loss
 F     of consortium’, hence, there is no justification to award
       compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ as a separate
       lead – Thus, the impugned judgments of the High Courts awarding
       consortium to each of the claimants in accordance with law which
       does not warrant any interference – However, the submission of the
       appellant that there is no justification for award of compensation
 G
       under separate head ‘loss of love and affection’ is accepted.
              Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
              HELD: 1. A three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance
       Company Ltd. versus Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and others,
       (2020) SCC Online 410, had reaffirmed the view of two-Judge
 H
                                       1132
 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SMT.                        1133
               SOMWATI AND OTHERS

Bench in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.. The Three-               A
Judge Bench in the above case approved the comprehensive
interpretation given to the expression ‘consortium’ to include
spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filial
consortium. Three-Judge Bench however further laid down that
‘loss of love and affection’ is comprehended in ‘loss of consortium’,
hence, there is no justification to award compensation towards          B
‘loss of love and affection’ as a separate head. [Paras 33 and
34][1044-H; 1047-C-D]
       2. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has also not
under conventional head included any compensation towards ‘loss
of love and affection’ which have been now further reiterated by        C
three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd.. It
is thus now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can
be awarded under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. [Para 35]
[1047-D-E]
       3. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that Pranay       D
Sethi has only referred to spousal consortium and no other
consortium was referred to in the judgment of Pranay Sethi, hence,
there is no justification for allowing the parental consortium and
filial consortium. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has
referred to amount of Rs.40,000/- to the ‘loss of consortium’ but
the Constitution Bench had not addressed the issue as to whether        E
consortium of Rs.40,000/- is only payable as spousal consortium.
The judgment of Pranay Sethi cannot be read to mean that it lays
down the proposition that the consortium is payable only to the
wife. [Para 38][1148-E-F]
       4. The Three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance               F
Company Ltd. has categorically laid down that apart from spousal
consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable. This Court
feel itself bound by the above judgment of Three Judge Bench.
This Court, thus, cannot accept the submission of the appellant
that the amount of consortium awarded to each of the claimants
                                                                        G
is not sustainable. [Para 39][1148-G]
      5. This Court thus, found the impugned judgments of the
High Court awarding consortium to each of the claimants in
accordance with law which does not warrant any interference in
this appeal. This Court, however, accept the submissions of the
                                                                        H
1134            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2020] 10 S.C.R.


 A     appellant that there is no justification for award of compensation
       under separate head ‘loss of love and affection’. The appeal filed
       by the appellant deserves to be allowed insofar as the award of
       compensation under the head ‘loss of love and affection’.
       [Para 40][1148-H; 1149-A]
 B           General Manager Kerala State Road Transport
             Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs) and
             Others (1994) 2 SCC 176; Sarla Verma (Smt) and
             Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another
             (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098; United India
             Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias
 C           Satvinder Kaur and Others (2020) SCC Online SC 410
             – relied on.
            Magma General Insurance Company ltd. v. Nanu Ram
            @ Chuhru Ram and Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130; National
            Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others,
 D          (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100; Sangita Arya
            and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and
            Others (2020) SCC Online SC 513; M.H.Uma
            Maheshwari and Others v. United India Insurance
            Company Ltd. (2020) 6 SCC 400 – referred to.
 E                         Case Law Reference
       (2018) 18 SCC 130              referred to     Para 7
       [2017] 13 SCR 100                   referred to        Para 15
       (1994) 2 SCC 176                    relied on          Para 24
       [2009] 5 SCR 1098                   relied on          Para 26
 F
       (2020) 6 SCC 400                    referred to        Para 44
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3093
       Of 2020.
              From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2019 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Allahabad, in First Appeal from order No. 1894 of 2003.
 G
             WITH
             Civil Appeal Nos. 3094, 3095, 3096, 3097, 3098, 3099 Of 2020.
             Pankaj Seth, Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Sudhir Naagar, Rohit Kumar
       Sinha, T. Mahipal, Nishant Singh, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Sunil Kumar
 H     Verma, V. N. Raghupathy, Advs. for the appearing parties.
 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SMT.                                  1135
               SOMWATI AND OTHERS

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                 A
       ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
       1. Leave granted.
        2. These appeals raising common questions of law have been
heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For
deciding these appeals, it is sufficient to notice the facts in detail in Civil   B
Appeal No. 3093/2020(arising out of SLP(C) No.23478 of 2019),
New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Somwati and
Others and brief facts in other appeals.
        3. All these appeals have been filed by three Insurance Companies,
i.e., New India Assurance Company Limited, Cholamandalam                          C
MS General Insurance Company Ltd. and The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. questioning the judgments of the High Courts arising out
of the award by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) with regard
to the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants under two heads,
i.e., “Loss of Consortium” and “loss of love and affection.”
                                                                                  D
       Civil Appeal NO. 3093/2020(arising out of SLP(C)No.23478
of 2019), New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt.
Somwati and Others
       4. Ram Jiyawan, the husband of Smt. Somwati died in a Motor
Vehicle accident on 06.12.2001 leaving behind his widow Smt. Somwati
                                                                                  E
and seven minor children. Claim petition No.7 of 2002 was filed under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of
Rs.15,25,000/-. The MACT by award dated 22.03.2003 allowed a claim
of Rs. 1,67,000/- with 9% interest. An appeal was filed by Smt. Somwati
Devi and others in the High Court being F.A.F.O.No.1894 of 2003. The
High Court allowed the appeal of the claimants and awarded a                      F
compensation of Rs.12,54,000/-. Against the judgment of the High Court
dated 25.02.2019, this appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.
The grant of compensation under two heads has been challenged in this
appeal, i.e., item No. (vi) and (viii), which are to the following effect:-
       “(vi)Loss of love and affection= Rs.4,00,000/-(Rs.50,000/- to each         G
       of the eight claimants).
       (viii) Loss of Parental Consortium to claimant/appellant nos.2 to
       8= Rs.2,80,000/-(Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants).”
       5. This Court while issuing notice on 24.04.2019 passed following
order:-                                                                           H
1136            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 10 S.C.R.


 A                                   “O R D E R
             Delay condoned.
                   Issue notice returnable in four weeks limited to the issue
             whether both consortium and loss of love and affection could have
             been awarded by the High Court in this case.
 B                  Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
                    Until further orders, there shall be stay of 2 payment of the
             compensation amount payable to the claimants towards clause
             (vi) of the impugned judgment which reads as under :
                    “Loss of love and affection=Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- to
 C           each of the eight claimants)”
             6. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, the respondents
       have appeared and filed reply as well as written submissions.
             Civil Appeal No. 3094/2020(arising out of SLP(C)No.4801
       of 2020), New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Sangita
 D     Devi and Others
               7. Sanjay Kumar, husband of the respondent Sangeeta Devi died
       of Motor Vehicle accident on 12.01.2015. Claim Petition bearing MACP
       No.862 of 2016 was filed by the respondents, which claim petition was
       allowed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, granting a compensation of
 E     Rs.17,71,000/- with interest of 9%. Claimants filed an appeal in the High
       Court. The High Court following the judgment of this Court in Magma
       General Insurance Company ltd. Versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram
       and Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, granted compensation for ‘loss of love
       and affection’ at the rate of Rs.50,000/- to each of eight claimants and
       similarly, under the head ‘Loss of consortium’ at the rate of Rs.40,000/-
 F
       to all the eight claimants. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Delhi High
       Court, Insurance Company has filed appeal challenging the order of the
       High Court.
               Civil Appeal No. 3095/2020(arising out of SLP(C)No.4643
       of 2020), New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Azmati
 G     Khatoon and Others
             8. Mohd. Hasibul Bassan, died in a Motor Vehicle accident on
       29.10.2007. Claim Petition was filed by respondents which has been
       allowed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting a compensation of
       Rs.17,32,776/- with interest. The appellant filed an appeal in the High
 H     Court. The High Court granted compensation under the head ‘loss of
 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SMT.                            1137
     SOMWATI AND OTHERS [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

love and affection’ at the rate of Rs.50,000/- to each seven claimants      A
and Rs.40,000/- each to seven claimants under the head ‘loss of
consortium’. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Delhi High Court,
Insurance Company is in appeal.
      Civil Appeal No. 3096/2020 (arising out of SLP(C)No.5441
of 2020), Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company                        B
Limited Versus Umarani and Others
       9. The deceased Krishnasamy met with a vehicular accident on
07.09.2014 who subsequently died. Claim petition was filed by the
respondents which has been allowed by Motor Vehicle Accident
Compensation Tribunal granting compensation of Rs.13,60,000/-. Appeal
                                                                            C
was filed by the Insurance Company. The award under the head ‘loss of
consortium’, an amount of Rs.One Lakh and award under the head
‘loss of love and affection’ an amount of Rs. Three Lakhs was confirmed
by the High Court, which is challenged by Insurance Company in this
appeal.
       Civil Appeal No. 3097/2020(arising out of SLP(C)No.6381              D
of 2020),New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt.
Pinki and Others
       10. One Dinesh Kumar met with a motor vehicle accident on
11.06.2014 and died. Claim Petition filed by the respondents was allowed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting an amount of                 E
Rs.13,01,776/-. Claimants filed an appeal before the High Court which
enhanced the compensation. The High Court granted compensation under
the head ‘loss of love and affection’ Rs.50,000/- each to four claimants
and under the head ‘loss of consortium’ at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each
to four claimants. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, Insurance
                                                                            F
Company is in this appeal.
      Civil Appeal No. 3098/2020(arising out of SLP(C)No.7556
of 2020), New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Nanak
Chand and Others
       11. Gaurav died in a motor vehicle accident on 23.09.2010. Claim
                                                                            G
petition was filed by the parents of the deceased, which was allowed
granting compensation of Rs.4,83,348/-. Claimants filed an appeal in the
High Court which was allowed. The High Court granted compensation
of Rs.50,000/- each to both the claimants under the head ‘loss of love
and affection’ and Rs.40,000/- each to both the claimants under the
                                                                            H
1138             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 10 S.C.R.


 A     head ‘loss of consortium’. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court,
       this appeal has been filed.
              Civil Appeal No. 3099/2020(arising out of SLP(C)No.8250
       of 2020),The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Smt.
       Rinku Devi and Others
 B             12. Birbal Kumar met with an accident on 27.07.2008 resulting in
       his death. Claim petition filed by the respondents claiming Rs.Twenty
       lakhs was allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting
       compensation of Rs.5,80,000/-. Insurance company filed an appeal. The
       Tribunal has awarded filial consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- to each
       of the claimants, i.e., wife, two children and father totaling
 C
       Rs.1,60,000/-. The High Court in the appeal filed by the Insurance
       Company further enhanced the compensation under the head ‘loss of
       love and affection’ at the rate of Rs.50,000/- to each of four claimants,
       i.e., enhancing total amount by Rs. Two Lakhs. Insurance Company
       aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has come up with this
 D     appeal.
               13. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as
       learned counsel for the claimants.
               14. In all the appeals, only issue to be considered is with regard to
       award of compensation to the claimant under two heads, i.e., (a)loss of
 E     consortium and (b) loss of love and affection. With regard to ‘consortium’,
       the question is as to whether it is only the wife who is entitled for
       consortium or the consortium can be awarded to children and parents
       also.
               15. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the
 F     Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd.
       Versus Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, has laid down
       that there are only three conventional heads namely (i)‘loss of estate’,
       (ii)‘loss of consortium’ and (iii)‘funeral expenses’, for which the amount
       determined by the Constitution Bench is Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and
       Rs.15,000/- respectively. Thus, the total amount under conventional head
 G     was Rs.70,000/- and the amount under conventional heads could not
       exceed Rs.70,000/-.
             16. It is submitted that the amount granted under the head ‘loss of
       love and affection’ is wholly without jurisdiction and further amount
       granted under the head ‘consortium’ could not be more than
 H
 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SMT.                               1139
     SOMWATI AND OTHERS [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Rs.40,000/- and the amount of ‘consortium’ is only payable to wife who         A
is entitled to Rs.40,000/- and the Tribunals and the High Courts committed
error in awarding amount of consortium to each of the claimant, i.e.,
wife, children and parents.
        17. It is submitted that even after the Constitution Bench Judgment,
this Court has allowed amounts under conventional heads as ‘loss of            B
state’ Rs.15,000/-, ‘consortium’ Rs.40,000/- and ‘funeral expenses’
Rs.15,000/-. It is submitted that after the judgment of Pranay Sethi, this
Court had confined the payment under conventional heads as per
judgment of Pranay Sethi, the impugned judgment of the High Court
awarding compensation under the head ‘loss of love and affection’ as
well as ‘consortium’ to each of the claimant is contrary to the law laid       C
down by this Court and has to be set aside.
        18. An additional submission has been made by learned counsel
appearing for the appellant in The Oriental Insurance Company ltd.
Versus Smt. Rinku Devi and others. Learned counsel submits that
although MACT has erred in allowing consortium to four claimants at            D
the rate of Rs.40,000/- but the High Court in the appeal filed by the
Insurance Company further enhanced the compensation under the head
‘loss of love and affection’. The compensation could not have been
enhanced on the appeal filed by the insurance company when the
claimants have not filed an appeal. Learned counsel further submits that
                                                                               E
the High Court further committed an error in directing the statutory amount
deposited by the appellant along with the appeal to be deposited in
AASRA fund opened in Delhi High Court which ought not to have been
directed since the appellant has raised substantial questions of law and
the appeal deserves to be allowed.
        19. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants refuting the           F
submissions of counsel for the appellant contends that the award to each
of the claimants at the rate of Rs.40,000/- under the head ‘consortium’
is in accordance with law laid down by this Court. It is submitted that the
award of compensation under the head ‘consortium’ cannot be given a
narrow interpretation. The amount under the head ‘consortium’ has rightly      G
been given not only to wife but children and parents. Learned counsel
for the claimant has supported the judgments of the High Court.
        20. Learned counsel for the parties have also placed reliance on
various judgments of this Court, which shall be referred to while
considering the submissions in detail.
                                                                               H
1140            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 10 S.C.R.


 A            21. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for
       the parties and have perused the record.
              22. The expression ‘compensation’ is a comprehensive term which
       includes a claim for the damages. Compensation is by way of atonement
       for the injury caused.
 B            23. The claimant in a claim for award of compensation under
       Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is entitled for just compensation.
       The just compensation has to be equitable and fair. The loss of life and
       limb can never be compensated in an equal measure but the statutory
       provisions under Motor Vehicles Act is a social piece of legislation which
       has been enacted with intent and object to facilitate the claimants to get
 C
       redress for the loss of the member of family, compensate the loss in
       some measure and to compensate the claimant to a reasonable extent.
              24. We may refer to the judgment of this Court in General
       Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum
       Versus Susamma Thomas(Mrs) and others, (1994) 2 SCC 176. This
 D     court considering the concept of compensation under Motor Vehicle Act,
       1939, laid down following in paragraph 5:-
             “5....The determination of the quantum must answer what
             contemporary society “would deem to be a fair sum such as would
             allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his among his
 E           neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair
             thing”. The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the “law
             values life and limb in a free society in generous scales”. All this
             means that the sum awarded must be fair and reasonable by
             accepted legal standards.”
 F           25. In the above case also, this Court awarded the amount under
       the conventional head of ‘loss of consortium’.
             26. Another judgment which needs to be noted is the judgment of
       this Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport
       Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, in which judgment in
       paragraph 16, this Court while elaborating the “just compensation” laid
 G
       down following: -
                     “5....”Just compensation is adequate compensation which
             is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case,
             to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as
             money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating
 H
 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SMT.                               1141
     SOMWATI AND OTHERS [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza,            A
      largesse or source of profit.”
      27. This court also awarded an amount under the head ‘loss of
consortium’ to the wife.
      28. We need to notice the Constitution Bench judgment in National
Insurance Company Ltd.(supra) which case notices the earlier                   B
judgments of this Court where compensation was awarded towards loss
of consortium. In paragraph 46, the following was laid down: -
      “46. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant
      of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In
      Santosh Devi, the two-Judge Bench followed the traditional method        C
      and granted Rs.5000/- for transportation of the body, Rs.10,000/-
      as funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- as regards the loss of
      consortium. In Sarla Verma, the Court granted Rs.5000/- under
      the head of loss of estate, Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses
      and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. In Rajesh (2013) 9
      SCC 54, the Court granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of                  D
      consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. It also
      granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor
      children. The Court enhanced the same on the principle that a
      formula framed to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-
      economic issue has to be contrasted from a legal principle and           E
      ought to be periodically revisited as has been held in Santosh Devi
      (2012) 6 SCC 421. On the principle of revisit, it fixed different
      amount on conventional heads. What weighed with the Court is
      factum of inflation and the price index. It has also been moved by
      the concept of loss of consortium. We are inclined to think so, for
      what it states in that regard. We quote: (Rajesh case):-                 F
                “17...In legal parlance, “consortium” is the right of the
         spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society,
         solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate.
         That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly
         understood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love,            G
         care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be
         compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary
         damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of
         award of compensation in other parts of the world more
         particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc.
                                                                               H
1142            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 10 S.C.R.


 A               English courts have also recognised the right of a spouse to
                 get compensation even during the period of temporary
                 disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an
                 attempt to compensate the loss of spouse’s affection, comfort,
                 solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and
                 sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the
 B
                 compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions,
                 since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated
                 for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major
                 amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it
                 would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at
 C               least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium.””
              29. In paragraph 52, the Constitution Bench opined that reasonable
       figures on conventional head namely ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of consortium’
       and ‘funeral expenses’ should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/
       - respectively. In paragraph 52, following has been laid down: -
 D                   “52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we
             find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has
             granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/-
             loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and
             guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and
             minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh
 E
             Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and
             traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on
             percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable
             criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to
             be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable
 F           foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index,
             fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be
             noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There
             has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be
             extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the
             thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any
 G
             kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed
             by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore,
             we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that
             reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate,
             loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-,
 H
 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SMT.                               1143
     SOMWATI AND OTHERS [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of            A
       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 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
                                                                               B
       years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in
       consistency in respect of those heads.”
       30. In paragraph 59.8, the Court further held that the amount of
conventional head should be enhanced at the rate of 10% every three
year. In paragraph 59.8, following was held:-
                                                                               C
      “59.8. 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 aforesaid
      amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three
      years.”
      31. The next judgment which needs to be noted is Magma General           D
Insurance Company Limited versus Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram
and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the concept of consortium was
explained in paragraphs 21,22 and 23 which are as follows: -
             “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
      (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is         E
      to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of
      Consortium. 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
                                                                               F
      affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With
      respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the
      deceased spouse.
      21.1. 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, cooperation,      G
      affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.”
      21.2. 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.”
                                                                               H
1144             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 10 S.C.R.


 A           21.3. 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 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.
 B
             22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about
             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 death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit
 C           parents to be awarded 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.
             23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
 D           providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine
             claims. In case 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. A few High Courts have awarded
 E
             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.”
             32. A two-Judge Bench in Magma General Insurance Company
       Limited awarded the amount of Rs.40,000/- to father and sister of the
 F     deceased. Paragraph 24 is as follows: -
             “24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium
             will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under
             ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the
             present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the
 G           sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of
             Filial Consortium.”
             33. A three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company
       Ltd. versus Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and others, (2020)
       SCC Online 410, had reaffirmed the view of two-Judge Bench in
 H
 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SMT.                               1145
     SOMWATI AND OTHERS [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Magma General insurance Company Ltd. Three-Judge Bench from                    A
paragraph 53 to 65, dealt with three conventional heads. The entire
discussion on three conventional heads of three-Judge Bench is as
follows:-
      “53. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitution Bench held that in
      death cases, compensation would be awarded only under three              B
      conventional heads viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
      expenses.
      54. The Court held that the conventional and traditional heads,
      cannot be determined on percentage basis, because that would
      not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income,
                                                                               C
      the said heads have to be quantified, which has to be based on a
      reasonable foundation. It was observed that factors such as price
      index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates, are aspects which
      have to be taken into consideration.
      The Court held that reasonable figures on conventional heads,
      namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses          D
      should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively.
      The Court was of the view that the amounts to be awarded under
      these conventional heads should be enhanced by 10% every three
      years, which will bring consistency in respect of these heads.
      a) Loss of Estate – Rs. 15,000 to be awarded                             E
      b) Loss of Consortium
      55. Loss of Consortium, in legal parlance, was historically given a
      narrow meaning to be awarded only to the spouse i.e. the right of
      the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society,
      solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. The         F
      loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse
      is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept
      of nonpecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major
      heads for awarding compensation in various jurisdictions such as
      the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have
                                                                               G
      recognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even during
      the period of temporary disablement.
      56. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors.,
      12 this Court interpreted “consortium” to be a compendious term,
      which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as
                                                                               H
1146      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 10 S.C.R.


 A     well as 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 with the deceased spouse.
       57. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature
 B     death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection,
       society, discipline, guidance and training.
       58. 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 of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents
       and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to
 C
       lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their
       love and affection, and their role in the family unit.
       59. 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
 D     jurisdictions permit parents to be awarded compensation under
       loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded
       to the parents is the compensation for loss of love and affection,
       care and companionship of the deceased child.
       60. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which
 E     has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims,
       or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case 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.
 F     61. Parental Consortium is awarded to the children who lose the
       care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents.
       62. The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per
       the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra).
       63. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity
 G     with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and
       affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding
       compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and
       affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has
       recognized only three conventional heads under which
       compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of
 H     consortium and funeral expenses.
 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SMT.                                1147
     SOMWATI AND OTHERS [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      64. In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive             A
      interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental
      consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection
      is comprehended in loss of consortium.
      65. The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award
      compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate                B
      conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation
      towards loss of love and affection as a separate head.
        c) Funeral Expenses – Rs. 15,000 to be awarded”
        34. The Three-Judge Bench in the above case approved the
comprehensive interpretation given to the expression ‘consortium’ to            C
include spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filial
consortium. Three-Judge Bench however further laid down that ‘loss of
love and affection’ is comprehended in ‘loss of consortium’, hence, there
is no justification to award compensation towards ‘loss of love and
affection’ as a separate head.
                                                                                D
        35. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has also not under
conventional head included any compensation towards ‘loss of love and
affection’ which have been now further reiterated by three-Judge Bench
in United India Insurance Company Ltd.(supra). It is thus now
authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded under
the head ‘loss of love and affection’.                                          E
        36. The word ‘consortium’ has been defined in Black’s law
Dictionary, 10th edition. The Black’s law dictionary also simultaneously
notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium
in following manner:-
        “Consortium 1. The benefits that one person, esp. A spouse, is          F
        entitled to receive from another, including companionship,
        cooperation, affection, aid, financial support, and (between spouses)
        sexual relations a claim for loss of consortium.
           • Filial consortium A child’s society, affection, and
               companionship given to a parent.                                 G
          • Parental consortium A parent’s society, affection and
            companionship given to a child.
          • Spousal consortium A spouse’s society, affection and
            companionship given to the other spouse.”
                                                                                H
1148            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2020] 10 S.C.R.


 A            37. The Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.(Supra) as
       well as United India Insurance Company ltd.(Supra), Three-Judge
       Bench laid down that the consortium is not limited to spousal consortium
       and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. In
       paragraph 87 of United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra),
       ‘consortium’ to all the three claimants was thus awarded. Paragraph 87
 B
       is quoted below:-
             “87. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the deceased
             Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three children as his
             dependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra)
             and Magma General (supra), the following amounts are awarded
 C           under the conventional heads:-
                i) Loss of Estate: Rs. 15,000
                ii) Loss of Consortium:
                    a) Spousal Consortium: Rs. 40,000
 D                   b) Parental Consortium: 40,000 x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000
                iii) Funeral Expenses: Rs. 15,000"
              38. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Pranay
       Sethi has only referred to spousal consortium and no other consortium
       was referred to in the judgment of Pranay Sethi, hence, there is no
 E     justification for allowing the parental consortium and filial consortium.
       The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has referred to amount of
       Rs.40,000/- to the ‘loss of consortium’ but the Constitution Bench had
       not addressed the issue as to whether consortium of Rs.40,000/- is only
       payable as spousal consortium. The judgment of Pranay Sethi cannot
       be read to mean that it lays down the proposition that the consortium is
 F     payable only to the wife.
             39. The Three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company
       Ltd. (Supra) has categorically laid down that apart from spousal
       consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable. We feel ourselves
       bound by the above judgment of Three Judge Bench. We, thus, cannot
 G     accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
       amount of consortium awarded to each of the claimants is not sustainable.
            40. We, thus, found the impugned judgments of the High Court
       awarding consortium to each of the claimants in accordance with law
       which does not warrant any interference in this appeal. We, however,
 H
 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SMT.                             1149
     SOMWATI AND OTHERS [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

accept the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that there is    A
no justification for award of compensation under separate head ‘loss of
love and affection’. The appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be
allowed insofar as the award of compensation under the head ‘loss of
love and affection’.
        41. We may also notice Three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court      B
relied by learned counsel for the appellant i.e. Sangita Arya and others
versus Oriental Insurance Company ltd. and others, (2020) SCC
Online 513. Counsel for the appellant submits that this Court has granted
only Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’ which is an indication that
‘consortium’ cannot be granted to children. In the above case, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- to the widow towards        C
loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- to the minor daughter towards ‘loss
of love and affection’. The High Court has reduced the amount of
consortium from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Paragraph 16 of the judgment
is to the following effect: -
       “16. The consortium payable to the widow was reduced by the           D
       High Court from Rs. 20,000 (as awarded by the MACT) to
       Rs.10,000; the amount awarded towards loss of love and affection
       to the minor daughters was reduced from Rs.10,000 to Rs. 5,000.
       However, the amount of Rs. 5,000 awarded by the MACT
       towards funeral expenses was maintained.”
                                                                             E
       42. This Court in the above case confined its consideration towards
the income of the deceased and there was neither any claim nor any
consideration that the consortium should have been paid to other legal
heirs also. There being no claim for payment of consortium to other
legal heirs, this Court awarded Rs.40,000/- towards consortium. No such
ratio can be deciphered from the above judgment that this Court held         F
that consortium is only payable as a spousal consortium and consortium
is not payable to children and parents.
       43. It is relevant to notice the judgment of this Court in United
India Insurance Ltd. which was delivered shortly after the above
Three-Judge Bench judgment of Sangeeta Arya specifically laid down           G
that both spousal and parental consortium are payable which judgment
we have already noticed above.
       44. We may also notice one more Three-Judge Bench judgment
of this Court in Civil Appeal No.2885 of 2020, M.H.Uma Maheshwari
and others versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. decided on             H
1150                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 10 S.C.R.


 A     12.06.2020. In the above case, the Tribunal had granted the amount of
       Rs.One Lakh towards loss of consortium to the wife and Rs.Three Lakhs
       for all the appellants towards loss of love and affection. The High Court
       in the above case had reduced the amount of compensation in the appeal
       filed by the Insurance Company. The High Court held that by awarding
       the amount of Rs. One Lakh towards loss of consortium to the wife,
 B
       Tribunal had committed error while awarding Rs.One Lakh to the first
       appellant towards the head of ‘loss of love and affection’. Allowing the
       appeal filed by the claimant, this Court maintained the order of MACT.
              45. In the above judgment although rendered by Three-Judge
       Bench, there was no challenge to award of compensation of Rs.One
 C     Lakh towards the consortium and Rs.Three Lakhs towards the loss of
       love and affection. The appeal was filed only by the claimants and not
       by the Insurance Company. The Court did not pronounce on the
       correctness of the amount awarded under the head ‘loss of love and
       affection’.
 D             46. We may also notice the additional submission advanced in
       Civil Appeal No. 3099/2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 8250 of
       2020), Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt.Rinku Devi
       & Ors. As noted above, we have taken the view that the order of the
       High Court awarding compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’
       at the rate of Rs.50,000/- to each of the claimants is unjustified which is
 E
       being set aside in this appeal. We, further, in the above appeal also set
       aside the directions of the High Court in paragraph 9 by which statutory
       amount along with interest accrued thereon was directed to be deposited
       in AASRA fund.
               47. In result, all the appeals are partly allowed. The award of
 F     compensation under the conventional head ‘loss of love and affection’ is
       set aside. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunals shall recompute the
       amount payable and take further steps in accordance with law.
             48. All the appeals are partly allowed accordingly. No costs.

 G
       Ankit Gyan                                             Appeals partly allowed.




 H