Siblings Of Deceased Motor Accident Victim Not Entitled To Compensation Under Loss Of Love And Affection: Kerala High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen held that siblings of a deceased motor accident victim have no claim to compensation under the head of loss of love and affection, as such a category falls outside the conventional heads recognized by the Supreme Court. The Court was hearing an appeal by the mother and siblings of a 21-year-old who died in a 2014 road accident, and while it enhanced the loss of dependency amount, it restricted consortium compensation solely to the mother.
The appeal was filed by the legal heirs of the claimant in a motor accident claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded. The claim arose from an accident on 28.10.2014 at about 9.00 a.m., when the deceased, while riding a scooter, was hit by a motorcycle allegedly ridden in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed on the same day. The claimants, being the mother and siblings of the deceased, sought compensation.
The owner and rider of the offending vehicle admitted the accident but denied negligence and attributed fault to the deceased. It was contended that the rider possessed a valid driving licence and that the vehicle was insured. The insurer admitted the validity of the policy but disputed the quantum and submitted that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. The Tribunal marked Exts.A1 to A8 and awarded ₹12,94,360 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimants preferred the appeal.
The Court recorded, “This appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the claimant… dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.” On notional income, the Court stated, “In order to award just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to refix the income at ₹9,500/-.”
While recalculating dependency, it observed, “Thus, after adding 40% of the notional income towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived at ₹13,300/-… Accordingly… the appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹14,36,400/-… towards loss of dependency.”
Regarding conventional heads, the Court recorded, “Going by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation under the conventional heads ought to have been fixed at ₹15,000/- each.” It further stated, “Thus, the heads get adjusted to each other.”
On the issue of consortium and loss of love and affection, the Court stated, “Now this court is called upon to decide whether siblings are entitled for compensation under the head loss of love and affection.” It recorded, “The constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded in a death case viz loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.”
Referring to precedent, the Court noted, “In Magma General Insurance (supra), it was held that loss of love and affection is subsumed within loss of consortium and cannot be awarded as a separate head of compensation.”
After considering the authorities, the Court concluded, “Thus following the judgment in V.Pathmavathi (supra), Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance (supra), I find that the siblings are not entitled for any compensation under the head loss of love and affection.” It further stated, “I find that the 1st claimant alone is entitled for an amount of ₹40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Hence, there will be a deduction of ₹3,60,000/- under the afore head.”
The Court ordered, “Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellants/claimants are awarded an additional amount of ₹2,66,400/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty six thousand four hundred only) over and above the amount awarded by the tribunal with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs against the respondent being the insurer.”
“The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.”
The Court stated, “The claimants shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, ADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above.”
“In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellants at the earliest in accordance with law. The ratio adopted by the tribunal has to follow as regards the enhanced compensation also.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri A.V.M. Salahudin, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri P.K. Manojkumar, Standing Counsel for United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Case Title: Mariyakutty & Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:16880
Case Number: MACA No. 1915 of 2016
Bench: Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen
