IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta FMA 44 OF 2024 Jhantu Manidas & Anr. Versus The Oriental Insurance Company LTD. & Anr. For the appellants : Mr. Gobinda Saha, Adv. Ms. Srija Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Milan Chandra Laskar, Adv. For the Insurance Company : Mr. Rishin Chakraborty, Adv. Heard on : 02.07.2026 Judgment on : 09.07.2026 Uploaded on : 09.07.2026 2 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J: 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 6th day of June, 2024 passed by the Learned Judge, MAC Tribunal -cum- Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Jalpaiguri in M.A.C. Case No. 268 of 2021 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, thereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,37,200/- in favour of appellants/petitioners. 2. The fact, leading to the filing of this case, is that on 12.04.2021, at about 9.10 am, while the victim was standing by the roadside near Kholta check post Rail gate under P.S. – Pundibari, Dist. – Coochbehar, suddenly, one bus bearing no. WB-71A-7441, which was proceeding with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the victim; as a result, the victim sustained serious injuries on his person and died at the spot. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been filed, and the same was disposed of by the Learned Tribunal by awarding compensation in favour of the appellants, but, as per the appellants, the same was not adequate. Hence, this appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants prayed for enhancement of the quantum of compensation on two-fold submissions. 3 Firstly, the Tribunal has not allowed any compensation towards a specific head, i.e. ‘Loss of consortium’, under the head of general damages and secondly, no interest has been granted from the date of filing of the application on the awarded compensation. As such, the quantum of compensation is required to be re-assessed on those heads and allowed the appeal after enhancing compensation. It was further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly given guidelines for granting compensation on different heads in a motor traffic accident claim case. 4. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal has also considered the notional income on the lower side compared with the present market economic conditions. Rs. 6,000/- per month has been considered as income of the victim, although, as per the present minimum wages stipulated in the notification of the Government of West Bengal, the notional income should be more than Rs. 6,000/- even in the case of an unskilled labourer. Therefore, the appellants filed this appeal for the enhancement of compensation. The Appellants have no other grievances in this appeal. There are no disputes regarding the quantum of compensation awarded on other heads, the multiplier, or the statutory deduction. 4 5. The learned counsel representing the appellants has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his aforesaid contentions for enhancement of compensation. Those are as follows:- i. V. Pathmavathi and Ors. Vs. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.1; ii. Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors.2; iii. Smt. Sarathi Barman Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.3; 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1/Insurance Company vehemently opposed the prayer of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and further submitted that the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation under the different heads correctly. The learned Tribunal further assessed the victim's notional income prior to the accident at Rs. 6,000/- per month, as the appellants failed to prove the actual income with cogent, oral or documentary evidence. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal. The Insurance Company has already paid the entire amount, and the appellants have already received the same. 1 2026 (1) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.); 2 2018 (4) T.A.C. 345 (S.C.); 3 Civil Appeal No. 2138 of 2026 @ SLP (Civil) No. 21734 of 2025; 5 7. The learned counsel representing the Insurance Company has also placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his aforesaid contentions and further bolster his submission that the income of the victim is rightly assessed as Rs. 6,000/- per month. Those are as follows:- i. Bony Dubey Vs. M/s. Shyam Bidi Work’s and Anr.4; ii. Mehmooda Bee and Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.5; iii. Angad Tiwari and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.6; iv. Bebi Giri Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.7. v. Hachhen @ Hachhena @ Hasen Ali and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.8 8. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, this court finds that the issues raised by Appellants are required to be decided by this court as under:- i. Whether the amount under the head ‘general damages’ can be enhanced? 4 2025 (2) T.A.C. 38 (S.C.); 5 2023 ACJ 329; 6 2025 ACJ 312; 7 2023 ACJ 343; 8 2026 (1) T.A.C. 850 (Cal.). 6 ii. Whether interest ought to be imposed upon the awarded compensation from the date of filing the application till final realisation? iii. Whether the filial consortium should have been awarded in favour of the parents in view of the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court time to time. 9. It is an undisputed fact that the appellants failed to prove the actual income of the victim before the accident. There are further undisputed facts about the date, time and manner of the accident. The victim died due to a motor vehicle accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 10. Consequently, disputes are only regarding the income of the victim, and actual compensation towards general damages and entitlement of interest. The other issues and findings of the learned Tribunal have not been challenged or raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. This Court, therefore, keeps these issues for consideration. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi9, specifically held that reasonable figures on conventional heads should be granted, namely, Loss of estate, Loss of consortium and funeral expenses @ of Rs. 15,000/=, Rs. 40,000/= and Rs. 15,000/= respectively. Another judgment relied upon by the 9 (2017) 16 SCC 680 7 appellants in the case of Magma General Insurancce Co. Ltd. (supra) is also squarely applicable in the present case with regard to the grant of compensation under the head of filial consortium. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has particularly held in paragraph No. 8.7, quoted herein below:- “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. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors., (2013) 9 S.C.C. 54 : 2013 (3) T.A.C. 679. 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, cooperation, 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 8 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 worldover have recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count [Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors., 2017 (4) R.L.W. 3368 (Raj.); Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & 6 Ors., 2014 (3) U.C. 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman and Others v. Susheela Chand Choudhary and Others, (1996) 3 Kant. L.J. 570 (DB). However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.” 9 12. Therefore, this court finds substance in the submissions of the learned advocate for appellants/claimants in this regard. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to receive compensation under the head “filial consortium”. 13. So far as the interest is concerned, it would be appropriate to refer to the Judgment passed by this Hon’ble High Court in the case of Rekha Dutta & Ors. vs. Ram Avatar Lohia & Anr.10, wherein it was held as follows: - “In our opinion, the very approach of the Tribunal was based on the wrong notion that interest is payable as a penal measure. In this connection, it will not be out of place to refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court about the object of grant of interest in the case of Alok Shanker Pandey vs. Union of India and Ors reported in AIR 2007 SC 1198: “It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example, if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B.” (Emphasis supplied) 10 2009 (3) TAC (Cal) 783 10 14. Consequently, the claimants are also entitled to receive interest on the awarded compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. on 02.06.2021, till realization. 15. So far as the income is concerned, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the claimants failed to prove or establish, either by oral or documentary evidence, that the victim was a private tutor and his actual earning by leading any cogent evidence and in the absence of any evidence, there is no option but to ascertain the claim of income based on notional income of the victim prior to his death. The Learned Tribunal has extensively discussed this issue and finally concluded that his notional income should be Rs. 6,000/- per month. Therefore, this court, upon considering the view taken by the Learned Tribunal and further perusal of the aforesaid judgments referred by the respondent/Insurance company, does not find it appropriate to interfere with the assessment of the victim’s income. Accordingly, the income of the victim is considered as Rs. 6,000/- per month prior to his accident. 16. Keeping in mind the above observation, discussion and proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the calculation of compensation is assessed as follows:- 11 CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION Monthly Income Rs. 6,000/- Annual Income (Rs. 6,000/- X 12) Rs. 72,000/- Add: Future prospect @ 40% of the income of victim (As per Pranay Sethi’s case) Rs. 28,800/- Total Income Rs. 1, 00, 800/- Less: deduction 1/2 of the total income (towards personal and living expenses) Rs. 50,400/- Total income after deduction Rs. 50,400/- Total loss of Dependency Rs. 50,400/- X 18 (Multiplier as per age of the victim) Rs. 9,07,200/- General Damages under different heads are follows: 1.Add: Loss of estate Rs. 15, 000/- 2.Add: Funereal Expenses Rs. 15, 000/- 12 17. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to get an enhanced compensation amount that comes up to Rs. 80,000/= (Rs. 10,17,200/- minus Rs. 9,37,200/-), which shall carry interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. from 02.06.2021 till payment and, in addition, interest @ 6% per annum shall also be calculated and paid on the awarded amount of Rs. 9,37,200/- from the date of filing of the application for compensation as aforesaid till final payment, if not already paid.. 18. The respondent no. 1-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount, i.e. Rs. 80,000/- and the interest as indicated above by way of cheque before the learned Registrar, Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri within a period of four weeks from date. 19. Learned Registrar, Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri, upon deposit of the amount and interest as indicated above, shall release the amount in favour of the appellants 3.Add: Loss of filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- each) Rs. 80, 000/- Total compensation Rs. 10,17,200/- 13 /claimants upon proper identification and subject to verification of the payment of ad valorem Court fees on the enhanced amount, if not already paid, in equal share. 20. With the above observations, the instant appeal, being FMA 44 of 2024 stands disposed of without order as to costs. 21. Connected applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 22. The impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal dated 6th day of June, 2024 is modified to the above extent. 23. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 24. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records, if received, be forwarded to the learned Tribunal for information. 25. Urgent Photostat copy of this Judgment be given to the parties upon compliance of all legal formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) P. Adak (P.A.)