Motor Vehicle Claims: Compensation For Loss Of Consortium

On seventh Sep 2020, The Supreme Court on account of The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati containing Justice Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy in their Judgment expressed that if there should arise an occurrence of Motor Accident Claims, Compensation for loss of Consortium can be granted to Children and Parent too.

Facts: Claims have been recorded by three Insurance Companies, i.e., New India Assurance Company Limited, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. scrutinizing the decisions of the High Courts emerging out of the honor by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) with respect to the remuneration granted for the inquirers under two heads, i.e., Loss of Consortium and loss of adoration and love.

Issue: here the issue is regarding consortium, whether wife is only eligible or children and parents too can be eligible?

Plaintiff averment: Litigant’s submitted under the steady gaze of the Court that the sum allowed under the head ‘loss of adoration and warmth’ is entire without purview and the further sum conceded under the head ‘consortium’ couldn’t be more than Rs.40,000/ – and the measure of ‘consortium’ is just payable to the spouse who is qualified for Rs. 40,000/- and the Tribunals and the High Courts submitted blunder in granting the measure of consortium to every one of the petitioners, i.e., wife, youngster, guardians.

Litigant further presented that even after the Constitution Bench Judgment, this Court has permitted sums under ordinary heads as ‘loss of state Rs.15,000/ – consortium Rs.40,000/ – and memorial service costs’ Rs.15,000/

Defendant averment: party disproving the entries of advice for the appealing party fights that the honor to every one of the inquirers at the pace of Rs. 40,000/ – under the head ‘consortium is as per law set somewhere around this Court. It is presented that the honor of pay under the head ‘consortium’ can’t be given a thin translation. The sum under the head consortium’ has appropriately been given not exclusively to the spouse however kids and guardians.

Observation of apex court: The Court alluded to the Black’s Law Dictionary and expressed that “The word ‘consortium’ has been characterized in Black’s Law Dictionary, tenth release. Dark’s law word reference additionally all the while sees the dutiful consortium, parental consortium, and spousal consortium in the accompanying way:-”

“Consortium: The advantages that one individual, esp. A life partner is qualified to get from another, including friendship, participation, fondness, help, monetary help, and (between companions) sexual relations a case for loss of consortium.

Obedient consortium A kid’s general public, friendship, and friendship given to a parent.

Parental consortium A parent’s general public, friendship, and friendship given to a kid.

Spousal consortium A life partner’s general public, fondness and friendship provided for the other companion.”

The Court in its Judgment expressed that the, “reviled decisions of the High Court granting consortium to every one of the petitioners as per the law which doesn’t warrant any impedance in this intrigue.” We, nonetheless, acknowledge the entries of educated advice for the appealing party that there is no legitimization for the honor of remuneration under isolated head ‘loss of adoration and fondness’.


High Court granting damages towards ‘loss of adoration and friendship’ at the pace of Rs.50,000/ – to every one of the petitioners is inappropriate which is being put aside in this intrigue.

The Court additionally expressed that “in an outcome, all the interests are mostly permitted. The honor of pay under the regular head ‘loss of adoration and warmth’ is saved. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunals will recompute the sum payable and make further strides as per the law.

This article has been written by Uveis Ahmed, LLM (3rd Semester) student at University of Delhi.

Also Read – Case Analysis: Case Analysis of Arbaaz Khan Production Private Limited v. Northstar Entertainment Private Limited and Ors.

Law Corner

Leave a Comment