The Gujarat High Court has significantly clarified the entitlement to compensation for loss of consortium in motor accident claims, affirming that each legal heir receives an independent award rather than a shared or lump-sum amount. This ruling reinforces the principle that emotional and relational loss is not a collective injury but a distinct harm suffered by each dependent.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, legal heirs of Narendrasinh Prabhatsinh Chauhan, filed a motor accident claim petition after he was fatally struck by a tractor while walking on the roadside on 5 March 2019. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation but under-assessed key heads: income, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium.
Procedural History
- 5 March 2019: Fatal accident involving Tractor Reg. No. GJ-20-N-5804
- 2019: Claim petition filed before MACT, Dahod
- 7 December 2022: Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,81,875/-, including Rs. 40,000/- for consortium as a single lump sum
- 2025: Appeal filed before Gujarat High Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Relief Sought
The appellants sought enhancement of compensation on three grounds: (1) higher income based on prevailing minimum wages, (2) increased amounts for loss of estate and funeral expenses, and (3) independent compensation for loss of consortium for each of the five dependents.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether loss of consortium must be awarded as a single aggregate sum to all legal heirs, or whether each dependent is entitled to an individualized award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellants relied on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade v. ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd. to argue that consortium is a personal loss suffered by each dependent, and therefore must be quantified separately. They contended that the Tribunal’s lump-sum award of Rs. 40,000/- for five dependents was arbitrary and contrary to the Supreme Court’s directive to assess each claimant’s emotional and relational loss independently.
For the Respondent
The insurance company argued that consortium is a non-pecuniary head and should be awarded as a single amount based on precedent, citing National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi. It further contended that the Tribunal’s award was within reasonable bounds and that enhancing it would set an unsustainable precedent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence on consortium. It distinguished Pranay Sethi, which dealt with a single claimant, from the present case involving five dependents. The Court emphasized that loss of consortium is not a monolithic loss but a multiplicity of individual deprivations - each dependent loses companionship, emotional support, and familial role differently.
"The loss of consortium is not a collective injury to be apportioned; it is a distinct and personal loss suffered by each legal heir, and must be compensated accordingly."
The Court applied the principle of individualized assessment from Magma General Insurance and Janabai Ghorpade, holding that the Tribunal erred in treating consortium as a single entitlement. It further held that Rs. 48,400/- per dependent, as fixed in Janabai, was the appropriate benchmark for 2019 accidents, given inflation and societal norms.
Regarding income, the Court noted the deceased was engaged in masonry work and, in the absence of formal proof, applied the minimum wage standard under Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., enhancing monthly income from Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 8,200/-. The multiplier of 13 and 25% future prospect were upheld as consistent with Sarla Verma.
For loss of estate and funeral expenses, the Court applied the standard of Rs. 18,150/- each, referencing prevailing norms and inflation adjustments.
The Verdict
The appellants won. The Court held that each legal heir is entitled to an independent award for loss of consortium, and that income must be calculated based on prevailing minimum wages in the absence of documentary proof. The total compensation was enhanced by Rs. 8,95,753/-, with the insurance company directed to deposit the amount within four weeks.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consortium Compensation Is Individual, Not Collective
- Practitioners must now file separate claims for consortium for each dependent, even in joint petitions
- Tribunals can no longer award a single lump sum for consortium across multiple heirs
- Each dependent’s age, relationship, and emotional dependency must be factored into quantum
Minimum Wage Sets Baseline for Unproven Income
- In cases where income proof is absent, minimum wage is the default benchmark, not arbitrary figures
- Tribunals must take judicial notice of state-specific minimum wages for unorganized sectors
- Affidavits and FIRs alone are insufficient; wage data from Labour Department must be referenced
Standardized Heads Require Updated Benchmarks
- Loss of estate and funeral expenses must be adjusted for inflation; Rs. 15,000/- is outdated
- Rs. 18,150/- per head is now the minimum standard for accidents occurring post-2018
- Advocates must cite Janabai Ghorpade and Magma General Insurance to justify enhanced amounts
