Page No.# 1/18 GAHC030005752025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./16/2025 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Guwahati R/b the Chief Regional Manager, G.S.Rpad, Ulubari Guwahati-07 VERSUS Sh C.Lalzika and 4 Ors. F/o Late Lalrinpuia Hualngo Thingdawl Venglai-796075 Kolasib District, Mizoram 2:Smt Linda Lalrinthangi 3:Smt Remsangzuali 4:Eddie Zorempuia 5:Malsawmdawngkim Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Lalremtluanga Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Benjamin Lalthlamuana for R1-5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Advocate for the appellant : Mr. Lalremtluanga Advocates for the respondents : Mr. Benjamin Lalthlamuana Page No.# 2/18 Date on which judgment is reserved :18.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 25.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced ? : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. Benjamin Lalthlamuana, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 – 5. 2. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against the judgment & award dated 22.04.2025, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl, Mizoram (Tribunal hereinafter), in MACT Case No. 20/2022. 2.1. It is to be noted here that vide impugnedjudgment & award, dated 22.04.2025, the learned Tribunal had directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 75,13,435/-,as compensation to the respondents herein with interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the claim petition. Page No.# 3/18 Background Facts:- 3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal,are briefly stated as under:- “On 08.01.2022, at around 03:30 PM, near Mandir Rengtekawn Kolasib, under Kolasib Police Station, one 12 Wheeler Tata Truck, bearing Registration No. UP-53-ET-5347, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against one Scooty, bearing Registration No.MZ01A 2295. As a result, the rider of the Scooty, Mr. Lalrinpuia Hualngo and the pillion rider, Mr. Joseph Lalthazuala, sustained multiple injuries on their persons and they were taken to the District Hospital, Kolasib for medical treatment and the medical examination report indicates that the victim, Mr. Lalrinpuia Hualngo sustained grievous injuries and the pillion rider sustained simple injuries. Thereafter, the rider of the Scooty was referred to Ebenezer Hospital, Aizawl. But, during the course of treatment, he succumbed to the injuries at about 02:10 AM, on 09.01.2022. Thereafter, an inquest was conducted and the dead body was forwarded to the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Kolasib, for postmortem examination. But, the Medical Officer had refused to conduct the postmortem examination, since the victim suffered demise, while he was given medical treatment at Ebenezer Hospital, Aizawl. Thereafter, the respondents herein, as claimants, filed a claim Page No.# 4/18 petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, before the learned Tribunal, which was registered as MACT Case No. 20/2022. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal had issued notice to the opposite parties. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 did not contest the claim petition. However, the opposite party No. 3, the appellant herein, had entered appearance and contested the claim petition by filing written statement, wherein it is stated that the claimant No. 1 is not the dependent upon the deceased and he is not competent to represent the other claimants and that the cause of death of the deceased was not due to vehicular accident, involving Tata Truck, bearing registration No. UP-53-ET-5347, as no postmortem was conducted to confirm the cause of death. It is also stated that the opposite party No. 3 is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and that the owner of the vehicle had knowingly employed a driver/opposite party No. 1, who did not possess a valid driving license and as such, the owner is not liable to be relieved from the liability to pay compensation arising out of the said vehicular accident. It is further stated that the accident took place not due to rash negligent and drunken driving on the part of the alleged driver/opposite party No. 1and that the age, income and occupation of the deceased, as pleaded in the claim petition, have not been admitted. Upon the aforementioned pleading, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:- (a) Whether the claim petition is maintainable in its present form and style? (b) Whether there was fault on the part of the Page No.# 5/18 driver or owner of the accident vehicle? (c) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, who is liable to pay and to what extent? Thereafter, the learned Tribunal, having examined4 (four) witnesses of the claimant side and after considering the same and also considering the documents, so exhibited by the claimants, answered the issues in affirmative and thereafter, directed the appellant herein to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation to the claimants. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein preferred the appeal, mainly on the following grounds:- 1) The deceased was a bachelor and as such, the deduction for personal expenses ought to have been 50%. However, the learned Tribunal has deducted one-fourth of the income towards personal expenses. 2) The claimant respondent Nos. 4 & 5, are nephew and niece of the deceased and they are not entitled to compensation under head loss of consortium, under the Motor Vehicles Act. Submissions:- 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in deducting one-fourth of the income towards personal expenses as the deceased was a Bachelor. Secondly, he submits that the claimants Nos. 4 & 5 Page No.# 6/18 are the nephew and niece of the deceased Bachelor and they are not dependent upon the income of the deceased and as such, they are not entitled to any compensation under the heard, loss of consortium, under the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned judgment and award, so passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl suffers from no illegality or irregularity requiring any interference of this Court. He submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted one-fourth of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, since the deceased left behind large number of dependants. He further submits the claimant Nos. 4 & 5 were also the dependent upon the income of the deceased and living in house, they are also entitled to filial consortium and the learned Tribunal has rightly granted the same. Under such circumstances, he has contended that the appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same has to be dismissed. Issues before this Court:- 7. In view of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and also in view of the contentions being made in the memo of appeal, the issues to be addressed by this Court are formulated as under:- (i) Whether the learned Tribunal has committed any illegality in deducting ¼ of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses? (ii) Whether the learned Tribunal has committed illegality in Page No.# 7/18 awarding filial consortium to the respondent Nos. 4 & 5? Consideration and Analysis:- 8. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the memo of appeal and the grounds mentioned therein and also the record of learned Tribunal and also gone through the impugned judgment and award so passed by the learned Tribunal. 9. It is not in dispute that the learned Tribunal has deducted ¼ of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. The issue of deduction towards personal expenses of a bachelor has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sarla verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.In paragraph No. 32 of the said decision Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "32. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the Bachelor and 50%as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the Bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and a large number of younger, non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 9.1. Thereafter, in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC Page No.# 8/18 130, Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue in paragraph No. 16 as under:- “16. With respect to the issue of deduction from the income of the deceased, the Insurance Company contended that the deduction ought to have been ½, and not ⅓rd, since the deceased was a bachelor. This issue has been dealt with in para 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121: (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770: (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] wherein this Court took the view that where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third, as contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. Considering that the deceased was living in a village, where he was residing with his aged father who was about 65 years old, and Respondent 2, an unmarried sister, the High Court correctly considered them to be dependants of the deceased, and made a deduction of ⅓rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, affirmed on this count.” 10. In the instant case, indisputably, the deceased left behind 5 (five) dependants, i.e. his father, one unmarried sister and one divorced sister with two children, being respondent Nos. 4 & 5.And in view of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), at paragraph No. 32 and also in the case of Nanu Ram (supra),at paragraph No. Page No.# 9/18 16, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has erroneously deducted one-fourth amount of the deceased income towards personal expenses, which ought to have been one-third instead of one-fourth. In the said decisions, Hon’ble Supreme Court had restricted the deduction to one-third of the income of the deceased. 11. Moving forward to the issue No. (ii), it appears that the learned Tribunal, in awarding the consortium, has awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each to all the five dependant family members. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 being the nephew and niece of the deceased are not entitled to filial consortium. 12. The issue of awarding filial consortium is dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, as under:- “46. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] , the two-Judge Bench followed the traditional method and granted Rs 5000 for transportation of the body, Rs 10,000 as funeral expenses and Rs 10,000 as regards the loss of consortium. In Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121: (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770: (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002], the Court granted Rs 5000 under the head of loss of estate, Rs 5000 towards funeral expenses and Rs 10,000 towards Page No.# 10/18 loss of consortium. In Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54: (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149], the Court granted Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses. It also granted Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The Court enhanced the same on the principle that a formula framed to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue has to be contrasted from a legal principle and ought to be periodically revisited as has been held in Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421: (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167]. On the principle of revisit, it fixed different amount on conventional heads. What weighed with the Court is factum of inflation and the price index. It has also been moved by the concept of loss of consortium. We are inclined to think so, for what it states in that regard. We quote: (Rajesh case [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54: (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 :(2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149], SCC p. 63, para 17) ‘17. … In legal parlance, “consortium” is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award Page No.# 11/18 of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have also recognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium.” 52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54: (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149]. It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421: (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160: (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] , it does not seem to follow the same. Page No.# 12/18 The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field has to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads. 12.1. This issue was again considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, in the following paragraphs:- Page No.# 13/18 “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680: (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248: (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] 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 v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] 21.1. 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 Edn., 1979).] 21.2. 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”. 21.3. 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 Page No.# 14/18 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. 22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised 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. 23. 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 v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848: (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435: (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74: (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570]. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation Page No.# 15/18 could be awarded on loss of filial consortium. 24. 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 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680: (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248: (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205]. 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. 13. In the instant case, when the findings so recorded by the learned Tribunal, in respect of awarding filial consortium is examined in the light of the proposition laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in awarding filial consortium to the father (respondent No.1) and unmarried sister (respondent No.2). It also appears from the record that the other sister of the deceased, (respondent No.3) is a divorcee. The respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are son and daughter, respectively, of the divorced sister and as well as nephew and niece of the deceased. The learned Tribunal had awarded consortium to them also. 13.1. Admittedly, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are minors and have already been held to be dependents upon the deceased and the appellant had raised no objection to this. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 are residing in the house of the deceased along with their mother (respondent No. 3) and in the absence of their father, they were growing under the protective umbrella of the deceased and also under his love/affection and care. Further, while their mother is awarded filial consortium, denying them of the same, to the considered opinion Page No.# 16/18 of the Court, would be too technical and it would be against the legislative intent, as the Act was enacted as a piece of social welfare legislation and any strict construction upon the provision would defeat the very purpose of the legislation. From the same standpoint this Court is unable to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment and award suffers from illegality or irregularity requiring any interference of this Court. Conclusion:- 14. In the result, this Court finds merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands partly allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 15 It is to be noted here that the other findings, so recorded by the learned Tribunal, in the impugned Judgment and Award are not challenged in this appeal. And the same has to be accepted as such. 16. Thus, the amount of compensation, which the claimant is entitled to, by deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, in light of the principle laid in the case of the decision in Sarla Verma (Supra) and Nanu Ram (supra), is assessed as under:- Sl. No. Heads Calculation I Monthly income Rs. 44,325/- II 30% of (i) to be added as future prospect=(Rs.44,325 + Rs.13,297.5 =Rs. (rounded off atRs. 57,623/). Rs.57,623/- Page No.# 17/18 Sl. No. Heads Calculation III 1/3rdof the (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased=(Rs.57,623/– Rs.19,207.6/- rounded off at Rs. 19,208/)- Rs. 38,415/- IV Compensation after multiplier of 14 is applied (Rs.38,415 x 12 x 14 =Rs./- Rs.64,53,720/ V Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- which has to be increased by 10% in every three years (15,000x 10/100) = 1500x 1 = Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- VI Loss of Consortium =Rs.40,000/-, which has to be increased by 10% in each three years 40,000 x 10/100 = 4000 x 1 = 4,000. (Rs.40,000 + 4,000 = Rs.44,000/-x 5=2,20,000/ Rs.2,20,000/- VII Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-, which has to be increased by 10% in each three years15,000x10/100 = 1500x 1 =Rs.1500/- Rs.16,500/- Total compensation awarded = Rs. 67,06,720/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakh Six Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty only). 17. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant herein is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of compensation, i.e. Rs.67,06,720/- (Rupees sixty seven lakh six thousand seven hundred and twenty), as directed by the learned Tribunal in paragraph No. 19 of the impugned judgment and award, within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of this judgment and order. Page No.# 18/18 18. Send down the record of the Tribunal forthwith with a copy of this judgment and order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant