The court clarified the calculation of compensation for loss of dependency and consortium, emphasizing the Insurance Company's liability despite challenges regarding the driver's license validity.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 23,15,000/-, for the death of the husband of the first claimant, who left behind him, five dependents: his wife, two minor children, and both his parents. The liability was cast on the Insurance Company who had insured the vehicle, rejecting their contention that the driver of the vehicle, the 1st respondent in the claim petition did not have an effective license and the license produced was fake.

3. The Insurance Company filed an appeal against the liability cast on them and claimants sought enhancement of compensation, in two different appeals, in which cross objections were filed by the registered owner of the offending vehicle. The High Court disposing of the appeals and the cross objections reduced the compensation for loss of income to Rs. 7,92,540/- and awarded amounts for loss of consortium to the widow @ Rs. 40,000/-, funeral expenses and loss of estate respectively @ Rs. 15,000/- each as has been held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

4. We heard Mr. Anamay Mishra and Mr. C.B. Gururaj, learned counsels for the claimant who pointed out that there was clear evidence through the employer that the deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/- which was accepted by the Tribunal; reduced to Rs. 3,700/- by the High Court. It was also argued that since there were six members of the family, for personal expenses, only 1/5th of the compensation for loss of income ought to have been deducted as personal expenses. It is also argued that loss of consortium to parents and children also are to be awarded as has been found in Pranay Sethi (supra).

5. Ms. Prerna Mehta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the compensation awarded by the High Court was just compensation. The appeal of the insurer was filed insofar as the liability cast on the Insurance Company. It was clearly established by examining an employee of the motor vehicle department that the license was fake. Even if the Insurance Company is directed to pay the amounts awarded, they should be given the right to recover the award amounts with interest from the owner of the vehicle.

6. The owner of the vehicle argued against the liability cast on him by the Tribunal and the High Court placing reliance on the decision of this Court in IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1398. Even if a fake license is produced by the driver, if it is a seemingly valid driving license, unless such license is demonstrably fake on the face of it, no employer would make enquiries as to its genuineness and in such circumstance when clear breach by the insured is not proved, the insurer has the liability, held this Court, in the cited decision.

7. In the quantum appeal, we must notice the contention raised on the income determined and the loss of consortium, as was applicable to the children and the parents. Before the Tribunal, the claimants had raised a contention that the deceased was employed in a rice mill as an accountant, and he was paid Rs. 15,000/- per month. One Jagdish Rai was examined as PW3 who asserted that he was the proprietor of the rice mill, but in his cross examination he specifically stated that he did not maintain any books of accounts in the mill and though he was paying provident fund for all his employees, there was no such payment made with respect to the deceased. The educational qualification of the deceased to enable him to work as an accountant was also not proved. The High Court hence rightly rejected the evidence of PW3. The High Court then proceeded to compute the income at Rs. 3,700/- as applicable to an unskilled worker looking at the minimum wages fixed by the State of Punjab for such workers. It is not clear as to from which document or notification such income was taken by the Tribunal.

8. As far as the income for an unskilled