Holding

The Supreme Court held that the loss of dependency should be calculated at Rs 25,20,000 based on a Rs 1,50,000 annual income with 40% future prospects, a one‑fourth deduction and a multiplier of 16, and that Rs 40,000 each should be awarded to the children and mother as filial and parental consortium.

Summary

The deceased, a 35‑year‑old farmer who cultivated 66 acres and owned 12 acres, died in a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligent driving of a truck. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awarded Rs 6,60,000, which the High Court later enhanced to Rs 17,66,000. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not correctly assessed the deceased's income and future prospects, and recomputed the loss of dependency on the basis of a Rs 1,50,000 annual income, 40% future prospects, a one‑fourth deduction for dependents and a multiplier of 16, resulting in a loss of dependency of Rs 25,20,000. The Court also observed that the High Court failed to award appropriate amounts for loss of consortium and, applying the principles laid down in Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram and National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi, awarded Rs 40,000 each to the children and mother as filial and parental consortium, totalling Rs 1,20,000. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment was modified to reflect the higher loss of dependency and consortium awards, while the interest component remained unchanged.

Issues considered

The correct method of computing loss of dependency under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including income, future prospects, deductions and multiplier.
Whether the High Court erred in assessing the deceased's agricultural income and in the quantum of compensation awarded.
The entitlement and quantum of loss of consortium (spousal, filial, parental) in motor accident compensation cases.
The applicability of loss of estate compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 166

Subjects

Motor Vehicles ActCompensationLoss of DependencyLoss of ConsortiumMultiplierAgricultural IncomeFatal AccidentMotor Accident Claim Tribunal

Judgment

54 [2022]
SUPREME COURT 18 S.C.R. 54
REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A HARPREET KAUR & ORS.
v.
MOHINDER YADAV & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9233 of 2022)
B
DECEMBER 15, 2022
[KRISHNA MURARI AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Fatal accident –
Compensation – Computation of loss of income and loss of
C consortium – Victim-deceased died in a motor vehicular accident
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck – Deceased
was a farmer/agriculturist aged about 35 years at the time of the
incident, who was survived by his wife, two minor children, and his
mother – Claim petition u/s.166 of the Act – Tribunal partly allowed
D the petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,60,000/- with 6% interest –
Appeal by claimants on the ground that the Tribunal only considered
the sauni crops, and not the rabi/harri crops which were also
cultivated on the lands – High Court partly allowed the appeal and
enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 17,66,000/ along with 7.5%
E interest; High Court assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.
95,000/-, added 40% future prospects and deducted one-fourth
towards expenses of the deceased – Still aggrieved with the amount
of compensation, claimants filed instant appeal – Held: Deceased
was a lambardar of the village, and a graduate – The documentary
F evidence on record showed that he was cultivating 66 acres, and
was entitled to one-third of the value of produce from income of
those agricultural lands – In addition, he owned and was getting
12 acres cultivated – Admitted returns were to the tune of Rs. 95,000/
- – According to deceased’s wife, the deceased’s income was Rs.
G 1,00,000/-; the claim was for an extent of 1 crore – Whilst there was
no evidence for the latter amount, the documentary evidence
supported the appellant’s case in regard to cultivation of extensive
lands – Having regard to these facts, the assessment of income @

H
54
HARPREET KAUR & ORS. v. MOHINDER YADAV & ORS. 55

Rs. 95,000/- appears to be on the lower end, and insufficient – It A
would in the circumstances of the case, be appropriate that the actual
income should be computed @ Rs.1,50,000/- per annum – Applying
40% towards future prospects, the total annual income amounts to
2,10,000 – With a one-fourth deduction (dependents), the annual
loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,57,500 – Applying a multiplier B
of 16, total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 25,20,000.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. The documentary evidence included the forms
filled and submitted to the Agricultural Produce Market C
Committee. Besides, the documents included the agreement
between the deceased, his parents, and brother, whereby he was
permitted to cultivate the lands owned by them, and entitled to
1/3 of the value of the produce. It is an uncontroverted fact that
he was also a lambardar of the village, and a graduate. The total D
extent of land he cultivated was 66 acres. He owned 12 acres.
The tribunal arrived at a lump sum amount of Rs. 95,000/- per
annum, and deducted 1/3rd from that sum, on the ground that it
constituted expenditure, and made a further deduction of 1/3rd
amount towards the deceased’s living expenses. The High Court E
added Rs. 38,000/- towards the sum of Rs. 95,000/-, towards
future prospects (@ 40%) and deducted 1/4th towards expenses
of the deceased, thus resulting in recomputation of income at
Rs. 99,750/- per annum. It applied a multiplier of 16 and added
other elements to arrive at the final figure of Rs. 17,66,000/-
F
with interest @ 7.5% per annum. [Para 8][59-E-H]
2. Even while the High Court increased the level of income,
it did not address the issue in the correct perspective. The
documentary evidence on record showed that the deceased was
cultivating 66 acres, and was entitled to a third of the value of G
produce from income of those agricultural lands. In addition, he
owned and was getting over 12 acres cultivated. The admitted
returns were to the tune of Rs. 95,000/-. According to the first

H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A appellant (the deceased’s wife) the deceased’s income was Rs.
1,00,000/- per month; the claim was for an extent of 1 crore. Whilst
there is no evidence for the latter amount, the documentary
evidence supported the appellant’s case in regard to cultivation
of extensive lands. Having regard to these facts, the assessment
B of income @ 95,000/- appears to be on the lower end, and
insufficient. It would in the circumstances of the case, be
appropriate that the actual income should be computed @
Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. Applying 40% towards future prospects,
the total annual income (Rs. 1,50,000 + Rs. 60,000) amounts to
C 2,10,000. With a 1/4th deduction (dependents), the annual loss
of dependency (Rs. 2,10,000 - Rs. 52,500) would be Rs. 1,57,500.
Applying a multiplier of 16, total loss of dependency (i.e., 1,57,500
x 16) is Rs. 25,20,000. [Para 9][60-A-D]
Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram – relied
D on.
Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54: [2013] 5 SCR
961; National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16
SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100 – referred to.
E Case Law Reference
(2018) 18 SCC 130 relied on Para 12
[2013] 5 SCR 961 referred to Paras 11 & 12
[2017] 13 SCR 100 referred to Para 12
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9233
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.03.2019 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.2228 of 2007 (O&M)
G Aabhas Kshetarpal, Siddhartha Jha, Advs. for the Appellants.
Gopal Jha, Nehal Kashyap, Amit Kumar Singh, Mrs. K. Enatoli
Sema, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Advs. for the
Respondents.
H
HARPREET KAUR & ORS. v. MOHINDER YADAV & ORS. 57

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Leave granted. With consent of counsel for the parties, the
appeal was heard finally.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the final judgment1 of the High B
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which partly allowed their
first appeal, enhancing the compensation awarded to the petitioners
from ` 6,60,000 (with 6% interest) to `17,66,000 (with 7.5% interest).
The appellants’ grievance is that the High Court erred in computation of
compensation for loss of income, and failed to award any amount under C
the head of “loss of love and affection”, while computing the final
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter, “MV Act”).
Facts
3. On 29.09.2004, the deceased, late Jagjit Singh was returning D
from Chandigarh in a car with two other passengers, when a negligently
driven truck collided with their car. Grievously injured, he was transferred
to the hospital for medical attention, but succumbed to his injuries. The
claimant-petitioners instituted a claim before the Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal (hereafter, “MACT”) under Section 166 of the MV Act, on E
23.02.2005.
4. It is an admitted fact (before both forums) that the deceased,
who was primarily a farmer/agriculturist, was 35 years old at the time of
the incident and was survived by his wife, two minor children, and his
mother (4 claimants). The MACT concluded that Jagjit Singh had died F
in the accident due to rash and negligent driving, and partly allowed the
claim with a lumpsum award of ` 6,60,000.2 Aggrieved, the petitioners
preferred an appeal before the High Court in 2007, on the ground that
the MACT had only considered the sauni crops, and not the rabi/harri
crops which were also cultivated on the lands. The High Court by the G
impugned judgment, partly allowed the first appeal and enhanced the
total compensation to Rs. 17,66,000 (with 7.5% interest). While all three
1
Final judgment dated 18.03.2019 in FAO No. 2228/2007 (O&M) passed by the
Punjab and Haryana High Court.
2
Order dated 25.01.2007 in MAC No. 2 of 23.02.2005. H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A respondents (driver, owner of truck and insurer) were held to be joint
and severally liable, since the truck was duly insured by the third
respondent, the latter was held liable to pay the entire assessed
compensation.

B

C

D

E

5. The calculation undertaken and determination of compensation
F by the MACT and High Court, are summarised in tabular format below:
Contentions
6. It was argued before this court, that the deceased was a farmer
who cultivated approximately 66.95 acres (546 kanals and 13 marlas).
Of this total, his wife (the first appellant) and he owned 113 kanals 9
G
marlas, and 24 kanals 1 marlas, respectively. The rest of the land was
owned by members of his family (each of his parents, his brother, and
3
Note: the MACT had concluded that income from agricultural land was Rs. 95,000 of
which 1/3 rd was deducted as expenditure; ¹ 65,000 was the total income. Of this, 1/3 rd
was further deducted as personal expenditure, to arrive at the final income/contribution
to the claimants being ¹ 43,000 p.a.
H
HARPREET KAUR & ORS. v. MOHINDER YADAV & ORS. 59
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

sister-in-law). By a written agreement, since 2003, all these lands were A
cultivated by the deceased who retained 1/3rd of the yield, as payment
for his labour/effort. It was also urged that the deceased was the
lambadaar of the village, and undertook various responsibilities related
to this role. A man of enterprise, it was reiterated before this court, that
he was young, well educated, and progressive farmer who employed
B
modern farming techniques, and was instrumental in increasing the
income from the lands. It was argued that the deceased was central to
the income generating activity, and the steady rise in his income was
testimony to his dynamic approach. It was submitted that his death
affected the income generating capacity, and therefore, the loss of
dependency on that score was vital. C
7. The first two respondents did not enter appearance and contest
the proceedings, despite service of notice. The third respondent urged
that since the business is a running one, in fact there is no loss of
dependency. It was submitted that the business was on account of the
agricultural lands, and since the petitioners, as heirs of the deceased, D
own and occupy the lands, there is no real fall in the income.
Analysis and conclusion
8. The evidence led before the tribunal, in this case, was both oral
and documentary. The petitioner has deposed, and stated that the deceased
earned ¹ 1,00,000/- per month. The documentary evidence included the E
forms filled and submitted to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee.
Besides, the documents included the agreement between the deceased,
his parents, and brother, whereby he was permitted to cultivate the lands
owned by them, and entitled to 1/3 of the value of the produce. It is an
uncontroverted fact that he was also a lambardar of the village, and a F
graduate. The total extent of land he cultivated was 66 acres. He owned
12 acres. The tribunal arrived at a lump sum amount of ` 95,000/- per
annum, and deducted 1/3rd from that sum, on the ground that it constituted
expenditure, and made a further deduction of 1/3rd amount towards the
deceased’s living expenses. The High Court added ` 38,000/- towards
the sum of ` 95,000/-, towards future prospects (@ 40%) and deducted G
1/4th towards expenses of the deceased, thus resulting in re-computation
of income at ` 99,750/- per annum. It applied a multiplier of 16 and
added other elements to arrive at the final figure of ` 17,66,000/- with
interest @ 7.5% per annum.
H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A 9. This court is of the opinion that even while the High Court
increased the level of income, it did not address the issue in the correct
perspective. The documentary evidence on record showed that the
deceased was cultivating 66 acres, and was entitled to a third of the
value of produce from income of those agricultural lands. In addition, he
owned and was getting over 12 acres cultivated. The admitted returns
B
were to the tune of ` 95,000/-. According to the first appellant (the
deceased’s wife) the deceased’s income was `1,00,000/- per month; the
claim was for an extent of ` 1 crore. Whilst there is no evidence for the
latter amount, the documentary evidence supported the appellant’s case
in regard to cultivation of extensive lands. Having regard to these facts,
C the assessment of income @ ` 95,000/- appears to be on the lower end,
and insufficient. It would in the circumstances of the case, be appropriate
that the actual income should be computed @ `1,50,000/- per annum.
Applying 40% towards future prospects, the total annual income
( ` 1,50,000 + ` 60,000) amounts to `2,10,000. With a 1/4th deduction (4
dependents), the annual loss of dependency ( ` 2,10,000 - ` 52,500)
D
would be ` 1,57,500. Applying a multiplier of 16, total loss of dependency
(i.e., 1,57,500 x 16) is Rs. 25,20,000.
10. The appellants had urged that the amount towards loss of
consortium awarded – especially in favour of the fourth petitioner, is too
low. A sum of ` 40,000/- was awarded towards spousal consortium
E and `1,00,000/- towards filial and parental consortium.
11. On the issue of consortium, this court had observed, in Rajesh
v. Rajbir Singh4, that:
“17. ... In legal parlance, “consortium” is the right of
F 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, care and
protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be
G 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

4
(2013) 9 SCC 54
H
HARPREET KAUR & ORS. v. MOHINDER YADAV & ORS. 61
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

America, Australia, etc. English courts have also A
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,
B
care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike
the 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 C
reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one
lakh for loss of consortium.”
12. The judgment in Rajesh v. Rajbir was followed in other
decisions. However, the approach in these decisions, was disapproved
by a five-judge bench decision in National Insurance Co. v. Pranay D
Sethi5, where this court indicated what should be the correct approach
in awarding amounts towards consortium:
“52. […] Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable
sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, E
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 that we have quantified should F
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….”
Applying this principle, in Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu
6
Ram this court held as follows: G
“20. MACT as well as the High Court have not awarded
any compensation with respect to loss of consortium and
5
(2017) 16 SCC 680
6
(2018) 18 SCC 130
H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A loss of estate, which are the other conventional heads
under which compensation is awarded in the event of
death, as recognised by the Constitution Bench
in Pranay Sethi. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial
and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and
entitled to award “just compensation”, irrespective of
B
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 loss of estate to
Respondents 1 and 2.
C 21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay
Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,
(2017) 16 SCC 680: (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2
SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of
D 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 affection of the deceased,
E which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it
would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse
: [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54].
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which
F allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of
“company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of
the other in every conjugal relation”. [Black’s Law
Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).]
21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon
G the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental
aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance
and training”.
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a
H
HARPREET KAUR & ORS. v. MOHINDER YADAV & ORS. 63
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes A
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
recognised 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 C
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 for loss of the love, affection, care and
companionship of the deceased child. D
23. 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 where a parent has
lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter,
the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium E
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 compensation on this count.7 However, there
was no clarity with respect to the principles on which
compensation could be awarded on loss of filial F
consortium.”
13. On an application of the principles indicated in Magma General
Insurance Co., this court is of the opinion that the filial and parental
consortium have to be increased. Each of the children, and the mother
G

7
Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 :
(2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013
SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in
Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ
570. H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A of the deceased, is entitled to `40,000/-. Thus, the total amount payable
towards filial and parental consortium is ` 1,20,000/-.
14. In view of the above findings, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
The appellants are entitled to ` 25,20,000/- towards loss of dependency;
and the three appellants being the children and mother of the deceased,
B are entitled to ` 40,000/- each towards filial and parental consortium.
The impugned judgment is modified to the above extent; the rate of
interest, and the other components, directed to be payable, are left
undisturbed. The appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs.

Devika Gujral and Anurag Bhaskar Appeal allowed.
C (Assisted by : Pragya Samal, LCRA)

D

E

F

G

H