IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (126)

Date of Decision:-17.02.2026 Anu Devi and Others ……Appellants Versus Rajat Kumar and Others ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ****

Present: Mr. Naveen Kashyap, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants– claimants against the impugned award dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby compensation of ₹25,21,414/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Amul Kumar, aged about 30 years, met with a fatal accident on 16.06.2024 at about 11:30 PM due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. He was survived by his widow, two minor children and his parents (father and mother). The claimants pleaded that the deceased was engaged in labour work in Golden Aspin Company under a contractor and was earning approximately ₹25,000/- per month, contributing his entire income towards the maintenance of his family. It is alleged that the Tribunal assessed the income inadequately and granted insufficient compensation, compelling the claimants to file the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation awarded is not just, fair and reasonable. It is further contended that though the Tribunal awarded ₹48,400/- towards spousal consortium to the widow and ₹96,800/- towards parental consortium to the two minor children, no amount was awarded to the parents of the deceased under the head of filial consortium. It is argued that the deceased is survived by his parents, namely Malti Devi (mother) and Ganesh Yadav (father), who were fully dependent upon him. Therefore, compensation under the head of filial consortium is liable to be granted to them.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3– Insurance Company submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not call for interference. However, he does not dispute the legal position regarding grant of filial consortium to the parents.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. The limited issue raised in the present appeal is regarding non- grant of filial consortium to the parents of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018, wherein it was held that consortium includes spousal, parental and filial consortium and that parents are entitled to compensation under the head of filial consortium in case of death of a child. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while interpreting the concept of consortium, held as under:

“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.

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 relationsh