Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Kaur & Ors vs Ram Singh & Ors on 20 November, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-46-2006
2006 (O&M) -1-
231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO
FAO-46-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 20.11.2024
Harbhajan Kaur and others ....Appellant
VERSUS
Ram Singh and Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEE
SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate of the respondent - Insurance Co.
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)
This is an old matter pertaining to the year 2006 but no one has been putting in appearance on behalf of the Insurance Company.
2. Previously vide order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007, this Court had already issued directions to the Insurance Companies that in the event, any of their empanelled counsel fails to appear, this Cou Court rt would request the counsel empanelled with the Insurance Company, who is present in the Court to assist in the matters. Further, the concerned Insurance Companies were directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to the counsel engaged by this Court for f assisting in the matters.
3. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Lalit Garg Garg,, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-Insurance respondent Insurance Company.
TRIPTI SAINI 2024.11.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-46-2006 2006 (O&M) -2-
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has handed over copy of the paper-book book alongwith relevant record to the learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company.
5. In view of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007, the Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to Mr. Lalit Garg,, Advocate, the counsel engaged by this Court in the present case. FAO-46-2006 (O&M)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant claimants/appellants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 02.08.2005 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby, the claimant claimants/appellant /appellants were awarded a compensation of Rs.3,65,000/ Rs.3,65,000/- along with interest @ 9% % per annum.
2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
3. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellant claimant appellants contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side side.. He further contends that learnedd Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 10 instead of 13 and amount assessed for funeral expenses is also on the lower side. Moreover, no amount has been awarded for the loss of estate and consortium. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed and the amount amount of compensation be enhanced enhanced, as per latest law.
TRIPTI SAINI 2024.11.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-46-2006 2006 (O&M) -3-
4. Per contra, learned for the respondent respondent-Insurance Insurance Company argues that the learned Tribunal vide award dated 02.08.2005 has rightly assessed the amount of compensation. Therefore, he prays for dismis dismissal of the present appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.
6. A perusal of the award indicates that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned learned Tribunal is on the lower side. Further, tthe deceased was aged about 50 years of age at the time of accident and was having three fold income from pension, pension, salary and dairy work. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/ Rs.4,500/-.. However, perusal of the award further er shows that multiplier of 13 is to be applied instead of 10, as per settled law. Moreover, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenditu ure, however, as per the settled law the deduction should be 1/4th towards personal expenditure. Further, award reveals reveals that no amount was granted for future prospects, loss of estate, loss of consortium and amount awarded for funeral expenses is also on the lower side. Therefore, the award requires indulgencee of this Court.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121] 121],, laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under:-
TRIPTI SAINI 2024.11.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-46-2006 2006 (O&M) -4-
"30
30.. Though in some cases the deducti deduction on to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third one third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one one-fourth fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
31.. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
TRIPTI SAINI 2024.11.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-46-2006 2006 (O&M) -5-
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, 32. only d the mother would be considered to be a dependant, 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 large number of younger non-earning non earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third one third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.
two
* * * * * *
42. We therefore hold
old that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas³, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M M-17 17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 M 16 for 31 to 35 years, M M-15 15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 M for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 M 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 M 7 for 61 to 65 years and M M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the law under Sections 166, 163-A 163 and 168 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following aspects:-
TRIPTI SAINI2024.11.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-46-2006 2006 (O&M) -6- (A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand;
(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased; (C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier; (D) Reasonable onable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation; (E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: with permanent job; self-employed self employed or fixed salary.
The relevant relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:
under:-
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expresse expressed d in Rajesh². It has granted Rs.25,000 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium ortium 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 refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional he heads, ads, 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 di dispute spute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this TRIPTI SAINI 2024.11.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-46-2006 2006 (O&M) -7- aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination etermination 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 centric or quantum quantum-centric.
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.
* * * * * 59.3.. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased ttowards owards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years years,, the TRIPTI SAINI 2024.11.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-46-2006 2006 (O&M) -8- addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
59.4.. In case the deceased was self self-employed employed (or) on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
59.5.. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided byy paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 42 of that judgment. 59.7.. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
59.8.. 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 aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
TRIPTI SAINI 2024.11.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-46-2006 2006 (O&M) -9-
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited L ited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others [2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranayy Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant paras of the same are reproduced as under:
under:-
"21.. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi² 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 "parenta consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the he company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, eceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual xual relations with the deceased spouse spouse.
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband husband-wife wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in eevery very conjugal relation".
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".
TRIPTI SAINI 2024.11.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-46-2006 2006 (O&M) -10-
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the pare parents nts 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 lifet lifetime.
ime.
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 over have recogn recognised ised 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.
ch 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 ccases ases 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 TRIPTI SAINI lose theirr parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A 2024.11.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-46-2006 2006 (O&M) -11- few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation 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 Sethi². 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 h for loss of filial consortium.
CONCLUSION
10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award dated 02.08.2005 is modified accordingly. The appellants appellants-claimants claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.4,500/-
2 Future prospects @ 25% Rs.1,125/- (4500 x 25%)
2 Deduction towards personal Rs.1406/- [5625 x 1/4]
expend
expenditure 1/4th
3 Total Income Rs.4219/- (5625-1406)
4 Multiplier 13
5 Annual Dependency Rs.6,58,164/-
(4219 x 13 x 12)
TRIPTI SAINI
2024.11.26 18:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-46-2006
2006 (O&M) -12-
6 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
7 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-
8 Loss of Consortium Rs.2,88,000/-
Parental : Rs.48,000/-
Rs.48 x4
Spousal : Rs.48,000/-
Rs.48,000/ x 1
Filial : Rs.48,000/-
Rs.48,000/ x 1
Total Compensation Rs.9,82,164/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,65,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs.6,17,164/-
11. So far as the interest part is
is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu Nadu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants-claimants claimants are granted the iinterest nterest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.
realization
12. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest with the Tribunal within a pe period riod of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the accounts of the claimants/appellants as per ratio settled in th thee award dated 02.08.2005.. The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.
13. Before parting with the judgment, this Court extends its appreciation to Mr. Lalit Gaarg, Advocate ate for his able assistance to the Court in the present matter. Further, the Insurance company-
company respondent No. No.3 is hereby directed to TRIPTI SAINI 2024.11.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-46-2006 2006 (O&M) -13- disburse the current scheduled fees to Mr. Lalitt Garg,, Advocate within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
14. Disposed of accordingly.
15. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
November 20,, 2024 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking speaking/non speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No TRIPTI SAINI 2024.11.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document