MV Act | Compensation Awarded As 'Consortium' Is Also Payable To Siblings Of Deceased Apart From Parents: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates
The Rajasthan High Court affirmed that in case of death of an individual in an accident, the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 towards the head Consortium is not limited to the deceased's parents but also payable to their siblings.The court thus observed that while no amount of money can compensate parents and siblings of the deceased however it is the court's duty to...
The Rajasthan High Court affirmed that in case of death of an individual in an accident, the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 towards the head Consortium is not limited to the deceased's parents but also payable to their siblings.
The court thus observed that while no amount of money can compensate parents and siblings of the deceased however it is the court's duty to award just compensation.
Referring to various Supreme Court decisions Justice Dr. Nupur Bhati in her order underscored, "This Court is also of the view that losing a child in an accident is an unfathomable tragedy for the parents as well as his/ her siblings. The anguish and grief that accompany such a loss are profound and enduring leaving the parents and the siblings grappling with emotions that often defy description. In a case of death of a child, no amount of money can compensate the parents as well as siblings of the deceased child however, it is the duty of the Court to award just compensation".
The high court thus enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,13,350 along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition which includes consortium of Rs. 1,45,200 along with funeral expenses of Rs. 18,150.
The Court was hearing an appeal as well as a cross objection against the order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal in relation to death of a 1.5-year-old girl who was run over by a school bus due to rash and negligent driving by the bus driver.
In the cross objection filed by the family of the deceased, the compensation of Rs.1,75,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum awarded was challenged on the ground that no compensation was granted under non-pecuniary heads like consortium to siblings as well as funeral expenses.
On the contrary, it was argued by the insurance company that the compensation under the head of consortium was awarded only to the parents and not to the siblings of the deceased in presence of parents.
After hearing the contentions, the Court rejected the argument put forth by the insurance company and made a reference to High Court's ruling in Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jethmal & Ors. in which the Court had awarded compensation under the head of consortium to the brother of the deceased as well. It was observed that,
“…contrary to the pecuniary heads, where factors such as dependency are important to ascertain the loss, the consortium, being a non-pecuniary head is not to be considered in the light of dependency of a claimant upon the deceased inasmuch as even the siblings, as in the present case, would be deprived of the love, care, affection and company of the deceased, which cannot be quantified. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant compensation towards the head of consortium to the brother of the deceased also.”
The Court further made a reference to the Supreme Court's decision in Sadhna Tomar & Ors. v. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors. in which the compensation under the head of consortium was also awarded to the sister of the deceased apart from the parents, wife and daughter of the deceased.
In this background, the court partly allowed the claimants plea holding them entitled to enhanced compensation.
An appeal was also filed by the bus owner and driver against the order of the Tribunal that had exonerated the insurance company of its liability on the ground that at the time of the accident, the driver was having not having valid license to drive the bus but only a license to drive the Light Motor Vehicles.
It was argued that as per the Apex Court ruling in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors., a bus drive holding a license for LMVs under Section 10(2)(d) of the Act was permitted to operate a “Transport Vehicle” without needing additional authorization because for license purposes LMVs and transport vehicles were not entirely separate classes.
The arguments were accepted by the Court that set aside the order of the Tribunal that had exonerated the insurance company, holding that all non-applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants along with the interest.
Case Title: Maa Sai School v Shanti Lal & Ors, and other connected Cross Objection
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 112
