IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta FMAT (MV) 28 OF 2025 ANJU SARKAR AND ORS. Versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR. For the appellants : Mr. Bikash Singha, Adv. Mr. Abdul Habib, 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, 2018 passed by the Learned Judge, MAC Tribunal -cum- Learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri in M.A.C. Case No. 86 of 2018 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, thereby the Learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 26,76,512/- in favour of appellants/petitioners. 2. The fact, leading to the filing of this case, is that on 08.12.2017, at about 7 pm to 7.30 pm, when the victim Surojit @ Sujit Biswas was proceeding towards his house from Bhotpatty with one motorcycle bearing No. WB – 72/L-3389, and reached near the bridge of the Jarda river under Maynaguri P.S., another vehicle, i.e. Tata Ace bearing No. WB – 73/A-9798 was coming at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner suddenly dashed back of the victim’s motorcycle. As a result, the victim fell down and sustained serious injuries on different parts of his body. He was immediately taken to Maynaguri Hospital. However, on the same day, he succumbed to his injuries. The victim was 28 years old at the time of the accident. An application for compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act had been filed by the legal heirs and representatives, but the Learned Tribunal granted lesser compensation by not awarding compensation 3 on different heads and wrongly deducted contribution of provident fund. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by them for enhancement of the compensation amount. 3. The appellants prayed for enhancement of quantum of compensation only on three-limbs of submissions, i.e. Firstly, the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted the provident fund contribution from the total salary of the victim although same should not have been deducted from the salary because provident fund deduction is his own contribution for future benefits as such same should be added to the amount of salary of the victim for the purpose of calculation of the compensation. Secondly, the learned Tribunal has also not assessed the actual compensation towards specific heads, i.e. spousal, filial, and parental consortium separately under the head of general damages. Finally, 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 vehicle accident claim case. 4 4. It was further submitted that there are no other grievances against the judgment and award of the Learned Tribunal as regards to the quantum of compensation awarded on other heads or multiplier or statutory deduction. 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. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sulekha Mondal (Adhikary) and Ors.1; ii. Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors.2; iii. Manasvi Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation3; iv. Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.4. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1/Insurance Company vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellants and further submitted that the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation under the different heads correctly. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal. The Insurance 1 2019 (3) T.A.C. 68 (Cal.); 2 2018 (4) T.A.C. 345 (S.C.); 3 2014 (2) T.A.C. 741 (S.C.); 4 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.). 5 Company has already paid the entire amount and the appellants have already received the same. 7. 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 the appellants are required to be decided by this court. i. Whether the amount under the head ‘general damages’ can be enhanced under the heads of spousal, filial and parental consortium? ii. Whether interest ought to be imposed upon the awarded compensation from the date of filing of the application till final realisation? iii. Whether the learned Tribunal should not have deducted the provident fund from the total salary in view of the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time. 8. There are no disputed facts about the date, time and manner of the accident. The victim died due to a motor vehicle accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 9. Consequently, disputes are only regarding the aforesaid issues raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellants. The other issues and findings of the learned Tribunal have not been challenged or raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 6 10. This Court, therefore, keeps these issues for consideration. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others5, 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 by the appellants in the case of Magma General Insurance (supra) is also squarely applicable in the present case with regard to the grant of compensation under the head of spousal, filial and parental consortium. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has particularly held in paragraph No. 8.7 quoted hereinbelow: “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, 5 (2017) 16 SCC 680 7 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 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 8 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.” 11. Therefore, this court finds substance in the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellants/claimants in this regard. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to receive compensation under the heads of parental, filial and spousal consortium. 12. 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.6, wherein this Hon’ble High Court 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 6 2009 (3) TAC (Cal) 783 9 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) 13. Consequently, the claimants are also entitled to get interest on the awarded compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. on 26.02.2018, till realisation. 14. So far as the deduction of the provident fund is concerned, the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted the Provident Fund from the total salary of the victim. The judgment relied upon by the appellants in the case of Manasvi Jain (supra), particularly paragraph no. 12 as regards the voluntary contributions towards GPF, Life Insurance premium, repayment of loans, etc. should not be excluded from the income, is also squarely applicable in the present case. The deduction towards income tax/surcharge alone and/or professional tax should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased. The victim does not fall under the income tax slab, so a deduction of income tax /surcharge does not arise. However, professional tax of Rs. 110/- is liable to be deducted from the Salary. Thus, his net income would be 10 (Rs. 13,153/- minus Rs. 110/-) Rs. 13,043/- per month as per the salary certificate exhibited before the Learned Tribunal. 15. 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: CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION Monthly Income Rs. 13,043/- Annual Income (Rs. 13,043 X 12) Rs. 1,56,516/- Add: Future prospect @ 40% of the income of victim (As per Pranay Sethi’s case) Rs. 62,606/- Total Income Rs. 2,19,122/- Less: deduction 1/3rd of the total income (Towards personal and living expenses) Rs. 73,041/- 11 16. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to get enhanced compensation amount comes to Rs. 1,02,946/- (Rs. 27,79,458/- minus Rs. 26,76,512/-) which shall carry interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. from 26.02.2018 till final payment and, in addition, interest @ 6% per annum shall also be calculated and paid on the awarded amount of Rs. 26,76,512/- Total income after deduction Rs. 1,46,081/- Loss of dependency (Rs. 1,46,081 X 18) Multiplier as per age of the victim is 18 Rs. 26,29,458/- Add: General Damages 1. Loss of Estate 2. Funeral Expenses 3. Loss of parental consortium 4. Loss of spousal consortium 5. Loss of filial consortium Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Total compensation Rs. 27,79,458/- 12 from the date of filing of the application for compensation as aforesaid till final payment, if not already paid. 17. The respondent no. 1-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount i.e. Rs. 1,02,946/- 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. 18. 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 /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. The amount of compensation towards minor child, namely, Sanju Biswas shall be invested in a fixed deposit scheme in any nationalised bank and/or post office in the name of minor until his attaining majority by her mother as a legal and natural guardian. The Xerox copy of certificate of fixed deposit be submitted before the Learned Registrar, Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri. 19. With the above observations, the instant appeal being FMAT (MV) 28 of 2025 stands disposed of. 13 20. The impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal dated 6th day of June, 2018 is modified to the above extent. No order as to costs. 21. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 22. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records, if received, be forwarded to the learned Tribunal for information. 23. 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.)