High Court clarifies, with binding effect, that each eligible dependent—spouse and children—must be awarded separate compensation for loss of consortium as per the Supreme Court’s ruling, overriding prior practice of a consolidated or lower amount. Affirms S.C. law, adjusts local compensation norms, and is binding on MACTs and subordinate courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FAO/999/2025 of MAGRET AND OTHERS Vs SANDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010212762025 |
| Date of Registration | 11-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN |
| Court | High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh |
| Bench | Single Bench: MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and subordinate courts within court jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Compensation (Statutory compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act) |
| Questions of Law |
Whether compensation for “loss of consortium” under the Motor Vehicles Act is to be awarded separately to each eligible claimant (spouse and children), and at what quantum, following Supreme Court judgments. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred by awarding Rs. 44,000 as consolidated compensation for “loss of consortium”. Citing binding Supreme Court precedents, each eligible claimant (spouse and children) is entitled to individual compensation for loss of consortium, quantified at Rs. 48,000 each. This approach is obligatory, not discretionary, for all MACT awards in similar fact situations. The judgment recalculates and enhances the total compensation accordingly. It also specifies mandatory interest rates and directions for disbursal and safeguarding minors’ shares, ensuring compliance with evolving S.C. jurisprudence. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Supreme Court’s interpretation of entitlement and quantum of consortium in fatal accident claims as a substantive statutory right for dependents. Court followed methodology and strictly applied precedent without deviation. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and subordinate courts within Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and MACTs outside Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Court has explicitly clarified that compensation for “loss of consortium” must be awarded to each eligible claimant (spouse and children) individually, not as a lump sum or consolidated amount.
- The quantum for “loss of consortium” per dependent fixed at Rs. 48,000, aligning with Supreme Court precedent, and higher than previously common local practice.
- The decision mandates recalculation and enhancement of compensation where Tribunals have failed to individually quantify the consortium amount, providing a direct template for future claims and appeals.
- Direction for the deposit and safeguarding of minor claimants’ shares reinvigorated and harmonized with the latest Supreme Court decision (Parminder Singh).
- Tribunals and counsel must now ensure explicit calculation and mention of eligible claimants and quantum of “consortium” in MACT awards, with failure to do so constituting error of law.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court directly applied the law as settled by the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, which mandates that “loss of consortium” compensation is payable individually to eligible dependents—spouse, children and parents.
- The court found that the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 44,000 as consolidated compensation for consortium was not in line with S.C. precedent. Rather, each dependent must be separately compensated (here: Rs. 48,000 each).
- Followed further clarification from N Jayasree v. Cholamandalam and Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal affirming quantum and entitlement to consortium per dependent.
- No dispute or challenge raised as to assessment of income, future prospects, multiplier, deduction for personal expenses, or other conventional heads; only the “consortium” head required rectification.
- Enhanced total compensation tally and issued specific directions for payment (including interest differentiation and FDR for minors).
- Adjustment is obligatory—neither optional nor to be dispensed with at Tribunal discretion—where facts satisfy criteria laid by S.C. in cited judgments.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Claimant-Appellants):
- Deceased’s income, future prospects, multiplier, and conventional heads not disputed.
- Tribunal’s award for “loss of consortium” is inconsistent with latest Supreme Court law, which requires separate compensation for each eligible dependent.
Respondent (Insurance Company):
- Contended the compensation awarded is sufficient.
- No scope for enhancement sought or required.
Factual Background
The claimant-appellants appealed against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur on 02.09.2024 following the death of a 34-year-old in a motor vehicle accident. Income, prospective increase, deductions, and multiplier applied by the Tribunal were accepted by all parties; the only issue was inadequate award under “loss of consortium”. No appeal or challenge was filed by the Insurance Company. The dispute specifically centered on whether the amount awarded under “loss of consortium” was consistent with Supreme Court guidelines.
Statutory Analysis
- The court interpreted Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in light of authoritative Supreme Court pronouncements regarding compensation heads.
- Application of the law as declared by the Supreme Court concerning “loss of consortium” as distinct compensable heads for each class of eligible dependent (spouse, children).
- No new interpretation or reading down/up—strict adherence to declared statutory compensation structure as per Supreme Court.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinion; single-judge, unanimous decision.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court specified that minor claimants’ enhanced shares are to be mandatorily kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) in nationalized banks, referencing and harmonizing with the latest Supreme Court mandate (Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal).
- Timelines explicitly provided for claimants to furnish bank details and for the insurer to deposit enhanced amount.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Applies Supreme Court’s binding pronouncements.
Citations
- National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680
- Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130
- N. Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd., 2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642
- Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal & Ors., AIR 2025 SC 1713
- Punjab & Haryana High Court, FAO-999-2025, Decision Date: 01.09.2025, CNR: PHHC010212762025