Compensation for Loss of Consortium and Love: Supreme Court’s Guidelines in Motor Accident Claims

The case of The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Somwati & Others revolves around a crucial legal question: whether claimants in motor accident cases can receive compensation under both ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘loss of love and affection’. The Supreme Court was called upon to settle this issue and provide clarity on the principles governing such compensations.

The appellants, various insurance companies, challenged the decisions of High Courts that had granted compensation under both these heads, arguing that such awards went beyond the legal framework set by the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, partially allowed the appeals, holding that compensation for ‘loss of love and affection’ is already subsumed within ‘loss of consortium’ and should not be awarded separately.

Background of the Case

These appeals arose from multiple motor accident cases where the claimants—widows, children, and parents of deceased victims—were awarded compensation by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) and subsequently by High Courts. The insurance companies objected to the additional awards made under ‘loss of love and affection’ in addition to ‘loss of consortium’.

The key details from one such case, New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Somwati, are as follows:

• The deceased, Ram Jiyawan, died in a motor accident on December 6, 2001, leaving behind his widow and seven minor children.
• The claimants filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 15,25,000/-.
• The MACT awarded Rs. 1,67,000/- with 9% interest.
• The claimants appealed to the High Court, which increased the compensation to Rs. 12,54,000/-.
• Specifically, the High Court awarded Rs. 4,00,000/- for ‘loss of love and affection’ and Rs. 2,80,000/- for ‘loss of parental consortium’ to the children.

The insurance companies challenged this award, arguing that compensation for ‘loss of love and affection’ was not legally justified.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The insurance companies contended:

• The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi had laid down three specific conventional heads for compensation: ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of consortium’, and ‘funeral expenses’.
• The head ‘loss of love and affection’ was not recognized separately under any legal precedent.
• ‘Loss of consortium’ includes spousal, parental, and filial consortium and does not require separate compensation under ‘loss of love and affection’.
• Granting compensation under both heads resulted in double compensation.
• The High Courts erred by awarding compensation beyond the prescribed conventional heads.

Respondent’s Arguments

The claimants countered:

• ‘Loss of consortium’ was historically meant for spouses, but courts had expanded it to include parents and children.
• ‘Loss of love and affection’ should be treated separately as it compensates the emotional loss suffered by family members.
• The court should consider the principles laid down in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, where compensation was granted separately for both heads.
• The awards made by the High Courts were reasonable and should not be interfered with.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the principles governing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and made the following key observations:

“The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has recognized only three conventional heads—loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses. Loss of love and affection is comprehended within loss of consortium.”

The Court further noted:

• ‘Consortium’ includes spousal consortium (for surviving spouses), parental consortium (for children losing parents), and filial consortium (for parents losing children).
• Compensation under ‘loss of love and affection’ is already covered under ‘loss of consortium’, making a separate award unnecessary.
• Several High Courts and MACTs had misinterpreted previous judgments and wrongly awarded compensation under both heads.
• The Court reiterated that compensation under conventional heads must be consistent and guided by established precedents.

Legal Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court referred to multiple legal precedents, including:

• National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680: Defined three conventional heads for compensation and fixed the amounts.
• Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130: Expanded the definition of consortium to include spousal, parental, and filial consortium.
• United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur (2020 SCC Online 410): Clarified that loss of love and affection is included within loss of consortium.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part and ruled:

“We hold that ‘loss of love and affection’ is comprehended in ‘loss of consortium’. There is no justification to award compensation separately under this head. The amount awarded under ‘loss of love and affection’ by the High Courts is set aside.”

The Court directed that compensation under ‘loss of love and affection’ be excluded, while the amounts awarded under ‘loss of consortium’ should remain.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has far-reaching implications for motor accident claims:

• It standardizes the principles governing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
• It prevents claimants from receiving double compensation under overlapping heads.
• It ensures that compensation under ‘loss of consortium’ is provided equitably to spouses, children, and parents.
• It provides clear guidelines for MACTs and High Courts to avoid inconsistent awards.

With this judgment, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that compensation under motor accident claims must align with established legal principles, ensuring fairness and uniformity in awarding damages.

Petitioner Name: The New India Assurance Company Limited.
Respondent Name: Smt. Somwati & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy.
Place Of Incident: Multiple Locations (Various Motor Accidents).
Judgment Date: 07-09-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The New India Assura vs Smt. Somwati & Other Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-09-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Motor Insurance Settlements
See all petitions in Compensation Disputes
See all petitions in Road Accident Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Insurance Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Insurance Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Insurance Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Insurance Cases Category