“In legal parlance, ‘consortium’ is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’ and ‘filial consortium’. The right to consortium would include company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of deceased.

With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with deceased spouse; parental consortium is granted upon premature death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training; filial consortium is right of parents to compensation in case of an accidental death of a child.

Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about status and worth of actual relationships. The amount of compensation to be awarded will be governed by principles laid down in Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.”

– Hon’ble Justice Indu Malhotra, Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018].

Placing a value on a loss of companionship is as difficult as estimating impact of a defamatory statement. One element has remained constant: restriction of loss of consortium claims to partners in a legally recognised marital relationship. Nearly all decisions have assumed without discussion, legal marriage is a required element of proof in a loss of consortium action. Magma is a step ahead of Pranay Sethi. There are miles to go before we sleep.

In awarding non-pecuniary damages, Court has often highlighted difficulty in computation. There is no manner in which such determination lends itself to formulaic ciphering. Every person in life has undertaken certain steps towards realisation of dreams and when they land up in an unfortunate situation, for no fault of theirs, trajectories of their lives are forever altered. Although abstract in written word, ‘pain and suffering’ one undergoes, apart from manifested disability, may be visible to another person. While ‘pain and suffering’ as a concept escapes definition, we may refer to certain authorities wherein attempts have been made to set down contours thereof.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi, [Special Leave Petition (Civi) No. 18337 of 2021] decided on 22.11.2024.