Supreme Court: Legal reps can claim motor accident compensation without financial dependency

Who it concerns: Appellants: Sameem Begum and others (wife and three children of the deceased); Respondents: K. Venkat Swamy and another; Bench: Justice N.V. Anjaria.

What the court decided

• The Court granted leave to appeal.
• The Court addressed the legal principle that legal representatives are entitled to claim compensation under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regardless of actual financial dependency.
• The Court discussed the heads of 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium' as non-pecuniary damages.
• The Court referenced the precedent in Pranay Sethi, which fixed reasonable sums for conventional heads (loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses) and mandated a 10% enhancement every three years.

Also in the document

• The judgment is marked as 'Reportable'.
• The Court noted that the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been observed in prior judgments to be redundant and unworkable due to inflation and changed scenarios.
• The Court clarified that the concept of 'consortium' includes the right to company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace, and affection, and for spouses, sexual relations.