I. COMMON ISSUES:
1. Whether the High Courts erred in law in granting compensation to the Claimants under the heads of “Loss of Consortium” and “Loss of Love and Affection”?
2. Whether it is only the wife who is entitled for consortium or the consortium can be awarded to children and parents also?
II. APPELLANTS:
Three Insurance Companies : 1. New India Assurance Company Limited; 2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. and 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through three separate appeals.
III. THE APPEALS BEFORE SUPREME COURT:
1. Civil Appeal No.3093 of 2020 : The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt. Somwati & Ors.
2. Civil Appeal No.3094 of 2020 : The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt. Sangita & Ors.
3. Civil Appeal No.3095 of 2020 : The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Azmati Khatoon & Ors.
4. Civil Appeal No.3096 of 2020 : Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited Vs Umarani & Ors.
5. Civil Appeal No.3097 of 2020 : The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt. Pinki & Ors.
6. Civil Appeal No.3098 of 2020 : The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Nanak Chand & Ors.
7. Civil Appeal No.3099 of 2020 : The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Rinku Devi & Ors.
IV. CASE LAWS DISCUSSED:
1. National Insurance Company Ltd. -vs- Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 –Constitution Bench;
2. The Oriental Insurance Company ltd. -vs- Smt. Rinku Devi and others;
3. General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum -vs- Susamma Thomas(Mrs) and others, (1994) 2 SCC 176;
4. Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121;
5. Magma General Insurance Company Limited -vs- Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130;
6. United India Insurance Company Ltd. -vs- Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and others,
(2020) SCC Online 410 – Three Judge Bench;
7. Sangita Arya and others -vs- Oriental Insurance Company ltd. and others, (2020) SCC
Online 513;
V. DISCUSSION:
General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum -vs- Susamma Thomas(Mrs) and others, (1994) 2 SCC 176 –
Para 5 – “Concept of Compensation” – “The determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society “would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing”. The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the “law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales”. All this means that the sum awarded must be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards.”- Court awarded the amount under the conventional head of “Loss of Consortium”.
Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 –
Para 16 – “just compensation” – ”Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of 16 compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” – Court awarded an amount under ‘Loss of Consortium to the wife’.
National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 – Constitution Bench –
Para 46 – “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 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 18 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.”
Magma General Insurance Company Limited versus Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 –
Para 21, 22 & 23 – Various kinds of Consortium – i). Spousal Consortium, ii). Parental Consortium, iii). Filial Consortium.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and others, (2020) SCC Online 410 –
Para 53 to 65 – Three heads of compensation grant – i). Loss of Estate, ii). Loss of Consortium & iii). Funeral Expenses. Laid down that ‘loss of love and affection’ is comprehended in ‘loss of consortium’, hence, there is no justification to award compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ as a separate head.
VI. HELD:
1. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has also not under conventional head included any compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ which have been now further reiterated by three Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd.
2. It is thus now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded under the head ‘loss of love and affection’.
3. Consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium and thus no requirement to interefere in the Order of the High Court in that regard.
4. There is no justification for award of compensation under separate head ‘loss of love and affection’ and that is set aside.
5. Appeals partly allowed.
