In a judgment delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any specified employment for the husband, it cannot be assumed that he was not at least partially dependent on the deceased wife’s income. Consequently, the Court altered the deduction towards personal expenses and recalculated compensation. It also reiterated that loss of consortium is not limited to the spouse but extends to children as well.
Background of the Case
The appellants—Sri Malakappa and his two children—filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of the wife of the first appellant, who died as a pillion rider in a road accident on 22 February 2015. The deceased succumbed to her injuries two days later, on 24 February 2015.
The Tribunal assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹7,000 (though ₹15,000 was claimed) and, after deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, awarded a total compensation of ₹18,81,966. The Tribunal held that the husband was not dependent on the deceased as he was an able-bodied person aged 40 years.
High Court Proceedings
The insurance company challenged the award before the High Court. It argued against the Tribunal’s findings, including the cause of the accident and the dependency status of the husband. The High Court upheld the finding of rash and negligent driving and increased the income of the deceased to ₹8,000 per month, despite no appeal by the claimants. However, it deleted the 50% addition for future prospects that had been awarded by the Tribunal.
Supreme Court Analysis
The Supreme Court found no fault with the High Court’s conclusion regarding the cause of the accident. However, it disagreed with the conclusion that the husband was not a dependent. The Court stated:
“Since there was no employment specified of the husband, it cannot be assumed that he would not have been at least partially dependent on the income of the deceased.”
Accordingly, the Court considered the family unit to consist of four members (including the husband), and adjusted the deduction for personal expenses from 1/3rd to 1/4th.
Regarding future prospects, the Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, which stipulates a 40% addition for self-employed persons below 40 years of age. The deceased, aged 35 years, was thus held entitled to 40% enhancement, not 50% as granted earlier.
The Court also relied on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Somwati, (2020) 9 SCC 644, to reiterate that:
“Loss of consortium is not restricted to the wife alone but has to be awarded to the children and parents.”
Final Compensation Awarded by Supreme Court
The Court awarded a revised compensation as follows:
| Heads of Compensation | Amount (₹) |
| Loss of dependency (₹8000×12×1.4×16×¾) | ₹16,12,800 |
| Loss of consortium (₹40,000 each to spouse and children) | ₹1,20,000 |
| Medical expenses | ₹21,966 |
| Transport and funeral expenses | ₹15,000 |
| Loss of estate | ₹15,000 |
| Total | ₹17,84,766 |
The Court clarified that no additional sum would be awarded under the head of “loss of love and affection” as loss of consortium had already been granted.
The Supreme Court modified the Tribunal’s award to align it with legal standards of “just compensation” as enshrined in precedents. The Court exercised its discretion under Article 136 to ensure appropriate application of the multiplier method, dependency considerations, and heads of compensation—even though the claimants had not filed an appeal against the Tribunal’s award.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of with the modified compensation.
Case Title: Sri Malakappa & Ors. vs IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 27391 of 2018
