ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Challenge is given by the insurance company to the judgment passed in MACP no.274/14 dated 6.7.2022 by the MACT (Main), Banaskantha at Palanpur.

1.1 The facts of the case suggest that the accident took place on 20.6.2014 and the claimant of MACP no.293/14 was driving his jeep bearing registration no. GJ-8 AE-4235 and in the said jeep, the deceased Mukesh of the present matter connected to the claim petition no.274/14 and applicants of other 2 claim petitions were traveling. The jeep was going from Beda to Hadod road and in the turning, it is stated that the jeep bearing registration no.GJ-8 A-2657 came from the opposite side in an excessive speed and dashed with the jeep bearing registration no. GJ-8 AE- 4235, wherein the deceased Mukesh aged about 18 was traveling. The petitioners are parents, five minors and one major sister.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Shelat submitted that the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 have not been considered in right perspective where in the judgment of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the consortium loss, while the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.3,52,000/- excess considering the same as a loss to the minor brothers. Mr. Maulik Shelat submitted that consortium loss has been granted to the parents while the brothers and sisters are six in number.

3. While countering the arguments, Mr. Vishal Mehta, learned advocate for the claimants stated that the Tribunal has considered appellants no.3 to 8 as minors and considering the loss of love and affection, the amount has been granted which Mr.

Mehta states is just and proper.

4. Ms. Pathak submitted that the insurance company of the jeep bearing registration no.GJ-8 AE-4235 is exonerated and thus, stated that since no liability has been laid down, the insurance company has nothing to say in the matter.

5. In the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, it has been observed as under:-

“8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium.

In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and ‘filial consortium’.

The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family.

With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. (Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54) Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.”

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5th ed. 1979)

Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.”

Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a c