M.M. Siddique And Anr. vs Shri Ram General Insurance Co. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 19265 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 17
 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 110 of 2015
 
Appellant :- M.M. Siddique And Anr.
 
Respondent :- Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Lakhimpur Kheri And 5 Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vimal Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Dinesh Kumar,Girish Chandra Verma
 
                     with
 
Case :- CROSS OBJECTION No. - 4 of 2019
 
Objector :- Ramakant And Ors. Inre - 110fafo2015
 
Respondent :- Sri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.Lakhimpur Kheri And Ors.
 
Counsel for Objector :- Girish Chandra Verma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Vimal Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Brief facts of the cases, under consideration, are as under:-

The appeal (FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 110 of 2015) was filed along with an application (C.M. Application No. 8874 of 2015) for condonation of delay assailing the judgment and award dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short "Tribunal")/Special- Additional District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in M.A.C.P. Case No. 307 of 2010 (Ramakant and others v. Bhagauti Prasad Sharma and others).

Thereafter, the Cross Objection No. 4 of 2019 (Ramakant and others v. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others) was presented in the Registry of this Court with an application (C.M. Application No. 60188 of 2019) for condonation of delay on 09.05.2019. On 13.05.2019, this Court directed the Office to list the Cross Objection filed for enhancement of amount of compensation with FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 110 of 2015 and in compliance thereof, the Cross Objection, in issue, was listed along with the record of the appeal i.e. FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 110 of 2015.

It appears from the record/order sheet that both these cases were listed several times after the order dated 13.05.2019. Thus, from this aspect of the case, it can be deduced that the respondents in the Cross Objection were having knowledge of its filing by the claimants, who filed the Cross Objection in FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 110 of 2015 and despite the knowledge of pendency of Cross Objection, the respondents to the Cross Objection failed to file the response to the application for condonation of delay.

Considering the aforesaid as also the explanation given for filing Cross Objection with some delay and also the fact that this Court condoned the delay in filing the FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 110 of 2015, this Court finds it proper to condone the delay in filing the Cross Objection, as it would be in the interest of substantial justice between the parties. Accordingly, the application (C.M. Application No. 60188 of 2019) for condonation of delay in filing the Cross Objection is allowed. Delay in filing the Cross Objection is hereby condoned.

It would be apt to refer here that this Court on 14.07.2015 passed the following order:-

"Admit.

Issue notice.

Summon the lower court record.

List for hearing after receipt of the record.

Until further orders, execution of the impugned award dated 30.4.2012 shall remain stayed provided appellants deposit the amount to the tune of Rs. 2,00000/- due under the award including statutory deposit within three months from today.

Half of the amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit in any nationalized bank in the name of two children i.e. Rs. 50,000/- to each, for a period of five years."

Further, in the FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 110 of 2015, the judgment and award dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. Case No. 307 of 2010 has been challenged only on one ground which is to the effect that the Tribunal erred in holding that the Insurance Policy (in short "Policy") of the offending vehicle i.e. Motorcycle bearing registration No. UP 34 F/8094 was not operative on the date of accident i.e. 14.11.2010.

It would be apt to point out here that the Tribunal for the purposes of disposal of claim, framed following four issues:-

"1& D;k fnukad 14&11&2010 dks le; 7 cts lqcg LFkku y[kheiqj&eSxyxat jksM+ ij 2& D;k nq?kZVuk dsa le; nq?kZVuk esa fyIr pkyd ds ikl oS?k o izHkkoh ykblsal Fkk rFkk okgu Lokeh ds ikl oS/k izHkkoh dkxtkr okgu ls lacaf/kr Fks\

3& D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; nq?kZVuk esa fyIr okgu chfer Fkk vkSj chek 'krksZa ds vuqlkj pyk;k tk jgk Fkk\

4& ;kphx.k ekWxk x;k izfrdj ikus ds vf/kdkj gSa ;fn gkW rks fdruk vkSj fdlls\"

Further, from the grounds of challenge in FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 110 of 2015, it is apparent that there is no dispute between the parties regarding age of the deceased i.e. about 45 years, date of accident i.e. 14.11.2010, time of accident i.e. 7 A.M., place of accident i.e. near Daihka turn, Lakhimpur-Magalganj road, offending vehicle i.e. Motorcycle bearing registration No. UP 34 F/8094 and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in respect to these aspects of the case are also not in dispute. Further, the registration certificate of offending vehicle and driving license, which was valid at the time of accident, are also not in dispute.

In addition, this Court finds from the Policy, in issue, that the same was issued on 13.11.2010 by Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. (in short "Company") and this Policy was effective from 00.00 hours of 14.11.2010 to midnight of 13.11.2011, meaning thereby that this Policy, which has been discarded by the Tribunal, was valid in the mid night of 13/14.11.2010 and was valid upto midnight of 13.11.2011. However, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issue No. 3 is otherwise. The Tribunal after considering the Policy issued on 13.11.2010 observed as under:-

"okn fcUnq la[;k& 2 o 3 dk fuLrkj.k%&

okn fcUnq la[;k&2 bl vk'k; dk fufeZr fd;k x;k gS fd D;k

nq?kZVuk esa fyIr pkyd ds ikl oS/k o izHkkoh ykblsal Fkk rFkk okgu Lokeh ds ikl oS/k izHkkoh dkxtkr okgu ls lacaf/kr Fks rFkk okn fcUnq la0&3 bl vk'k; dk fufeZr fd;k x;k gS fd D;k nq?kZVuk ds le;

nq?kZVuk esa fyIr okgu chfer Fkk vkSj chek 'krksZ ds vuqlkj pyk;k tk jgk Fkk\

mDr nksuks okn fcUnq ,d nwljs ls lacaf/kr gSA vr% lqfo/k dh nqf"V ls mDr nksuksa okn fcUnqvksa dk fuLrkj.k ,d lkFk fd;k tk jgk gSA mDr nksuks okn fcUnqvksa dks fl) djus dk Hkkj foi{khx.k ij gSA bl laca/k esa foi{khx.k dh vksj ls i=koyh ij dksbZ ekSf[kd ,oa vfHkys[kh; lk{; miyC/k ugha djk;k x;k gSA foi{kh la0&1 HkxkSrh izlkn 'kekZ o foi{kh la0&2 ,e0,e0 fln~nhdh dh vksj ls lwphi= 15x ls mDr eksVj lkbfdy dk iath;u izek.ki= 16x dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi nkf[ky dh x;h gS ftlls mDr okgu foi{kh la0&2 ,e0,e0fln~nhdh ds uke ntZ gSA x17 mDr okgu dh chek ikfylh dk doj uksV nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA mDr okgu fnukad 14-11-2010 ls 13&11&2011 rd oS/k ,oa izHkkoh n'kkZ;k x;k gS] ijUrq ;g chek ikfylh fnukad 14&11&2010 dks jkf= 12 cts ds mijkUr tkjh dh x;h gS] tcfd ?kVuk fnukad 14&11&2010 dh lqcg 7 cts dh gS ftlls ;g Li"V gS fd nq?kZVuk dh frfFk] le; o LFkku ij mDr okgu eksVj lkbfdy la0&;w0ih034,[email protected] dk dksbZ chek ugh FkkA lkekU;rk fdlh Hkh okgu Lokeh ds }kjk vius okgu dk chek fnu dh jks'kuh esa iSls tek djds djk;k tkrk gS u fd jkf=- 12 ctsA chek dEiuh ls jkf= 12 cts okgu dk chek djk;s tkus ls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd nq?kZVuk ds nkf;Roksa ls cpus ds fy, gh ;g chek djk;k x;k gS] tks ln~Hkkouk iwoZd u djk;k tkdj] nqHkkZouk iwoZd djk;k x;k gSA x18 HkxkSrh izlkn 'kEkkZ dk Mªkbfoax ykblsal dh Nk;kizfr nkf[ky dh x;h gS tks fnukad 08&02&2010 ls 04&08&2011 rd oS/k ,oa izHkkoh gSA bl izdkj nq?kZVuk dh frfFk ij tcfd mDr eksVj lkbfdy dk iath;u izek.ki= ,oa Mªkboj dk Mªkbfoax ykblsal oS/k ,oa izHkkoh Fkk] ijUrq mldk chek oS/k ,oa izHkkoh ugh FkkA rnuqlkj esjs mijksDr fu"d"kksZ ds vk/kkj izdk'k esa okn fcUnq la0&2 o 3 dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA"

While impeaching the judgment and award dated 30.04.2012 on the issue indicated above, it has been stated before this Court that the findings are completely perverse in view of specific facts indicated in the Policy particularly the period of Policy according to which the offending vehicle was insured from the mid night of 13/14.11.2010 to mid night of 13.11.2011.

On the issue involved, Sri G.C. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in Cross Objection placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of National Insuance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sobina Lakai and others reported in (2007) 7 SCC 786, relevant paragraphs of which are as under:-

"14. This Court had an occasion to examine the similar controversy in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal [(1990) 2 SCC 680 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 432 : (1990) 2 SCR 570] . In this case, this Court held that in absence of any specific time mentioned in the policy, the contract would be operative from the midnight of the day by operations of the provisions of the General Clauses Act but in view of the special contract mentioned in the insurance policy, the effectiveness of the policy would start from the time and date indicated in the policy.

15. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi [(1997) 1 SCC 66] has held that in the absence of any specific time mentioned in that behalf, the contract would be operative from the midnight of the day by operation of provisions of the General Clauses Act. But in view of the special contract mentioned in the insurance policy, it would be operative from the time and date the insurance policy was taken. In that case, the insurance policy was taken at 4.00 p.m. on 25-10-1983 and the accident had occurred earlier thereto. This Court held (at SCC p. 67, para 3) that "the insurance coverage would not enable the claimant to seek recovery of the amount from the appellant Company".

16. Another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi [(1998) 1 SCC 365] dealt with similar facts. In this case, the accident occurred at 2.20 p.m. and the cover note was obtained only thereafter at 2.55 p.m. The Court observed that the policy would be effective from the time and date mentioned in the policy.

17. In New India Assurance Co. v. Bhagwati Devi [(1998) 6 SCC 534] this Court observed that, in absence of any specific time and date, the insurance policy becomes operative from the previous midnight. But when the specific time and date is mentioned, then the insurance policy becomes effective from that point of time. This Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Bai [(1999) 7 SCC 575 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1322] and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chinto Devi [(2000) 7 SCC 50 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1272] has taken the same view.

18. In J. Kalaivani v. K. Sivashankar [(2007) 7 SCC 792 : JT (2001) 10 SC 396] this Court has reiterated clear enunciation of law. The Court observed that it is the obligation of the court to look into the contract of insurance to discern whether any particular time has been specified for commencement or expiry of the policy. A very large number of cases have come to our notice where insurance policies are taken immediately after the accidents to get compensation in a clandestine manner.

19. In order to curb this widespread mischief of getting insurance policies after the accidents, it is absolutely imperative to clearly hold that the effectiveness of the insurance policy would start from the time and date specifically incorporated in the policy and not from an earlier point of time."

Sri Verma further stated that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue, the liability to pay the amount of compensation fastened by the Tribunal upon the owner of the vehicle is unjustified and the Company is under obligation to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants before the Tribunal.

At this stage, on a specific query being put to Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Company as to whether the Policy was valid on the date of accident, which took place at about 7 A.M. in the morning of 14.11.2010, he very fairly stated that the Policy, which is on record, was valid at that relevant point of time. However, he stated that the cover note of the same was tampered. On a further query being put regarding Policy issued by the Company, he stated that the document i.e. Policy would prevail over the cover note. He also could not dispute the preposition settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding time indicated in the Policy.

Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal erred in recording finding on the issue Nos. 2 and 3, which requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the Policy was applicable on the date and time of accident indicated in the claim petition regarding which the findings recorded by the Tribunal have not been disputed by the parties before this Court. Thus, the liability to pay the amount of compensation would be on the Company.

Now, the issue of enhancement of compensation is to be considered, which has been raised in Cross Objection filed by the claimants.

Sri Verma on the issue of enhancement of compensation submitted that the accident took place on 14.11.2010 at 7 A.M. and at that relevant time, the deceased was earning from farming and in the claim petition, it has been indicated that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, which could not be proved by the claimants before the Tribunal and as such, on the basis of notional income @ Rs. 3,000/- per month, the Tribunal awarded the compensation.

He further stated that in view of the judgments of this Court as also of Hon'ble Apex Court, the notional income of deceased considering the date of accident should be considered @ Rs. 5,000/- per month. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and Others; reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1546 and Chameli Devi and Others vs. Jivrail Mian and Others; reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 (S.C.).

Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), wherein, the accident took place in the year 2013, the Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed the notional income at Rs. 6,000/- per month and enhanced the compensation in relation to other heads.

He further submitted that in the case of Chameli Devi (supra), wherein, the accident took place on 02.01.2001, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the notional income at Rs. 200/- per day, meaning thereby that the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the case of Chameli Devi (supra) considered it appropriate to grant compensation after taking note of notional income at Rs. 200/- per day i.e. Rs. 6,000/- per month. The relevant paras on reproduction read as under:-

"Keeping in view the fact that the accident took place in 2001 and the deceased was a carpenter, it would not be unjustified to assess his income at Rs.200/- per day. It is true that carpenter may not get per work every day, hence, we access the income at Rs.5000/- per month. Adding 40% for future prospects Rs.2,000/-, the total income works out to Rs.7,000/-. Deducting 1/5 for personal expenses, keeping in view a large number of dependents, the datum figure comes out to Rs.5,600/- per month or Rs.67,200/- per year. Applying multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs.10,75,200/-. Rs.70,000/- is added towards other non-conventional heads as laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 : 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673. The total compensation comes out to Rs.11,45,200/-."

On the issue of notional income, further reliance has also been placed on the judgment dated 10.12.2014 passed in F.A.F.O. (D) No. 478 of 2011 (Smt. Sheela Pandey W/O Late Surendra Kumar Pandey & 4 Others. vs. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Bena Ghabar Branch & 2 Others). In this case, this Court, for granting compensation, assessed the notional income of the deceased, who was doing business of selling milk/ diary business, at Rs. 6,500/- per month.

In the judgment relied upon on the issue of notional income passed in the case of Syed Sadiq And Others vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited; reported in (2014) 2 SCC 735, the deceased was Vegetable Vendor and the Hon'ble Apex Court, for the purposes of granting of compensation, after considering the state of economy and rising prices in agriculture products held that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning Rs. 6,500/- per month.

"9. There is no reason in the instant case for the Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence of monthly income of the appellant claimant. On the other hand, going by the present state of economy and the rising prices in agricultural products, we are inclined to believe that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning Rs 6500 per month.".

On the issue of notional income at Rs. 6,000/-, learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Resha Devi and Others; reported in 2017 (4) T.A.C. 288 (All.), this Court, in para 8, observed that "there can be no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of the human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. Obviously award of damages would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances of the case but the element of fairness in the amount of compensation so determined is the ultimate guiding factor. In such view of the matter, presumption of Rs. 100/- per day as notional income even for a unskilled labour in the year 2014 appears to us to be frugal and by no stretch of imagination to be just even the minimum wages fixed by the State Government is much higher than that looking to the rise in cost index. We are of the considered upon that notional income of an unskilled labour could not be less than Rs. 200/- per day."

Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Considering the aforesaid view taken by the this Court as also by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment(s), referred hereinabove, as also other aspects of the case, which are not in dispute such as time and date of accident i.e. 7:00 A.M. on 14.11.2010, dependency (two sons and three daughters), age of the deceased i.e. about 45 years, this Court is of the view that in the instant case, the reasonable amount would come to Rs. 5,000/- per month towards monthly income of deceased and compensation should be awarded accordingly.

In addition to above, Sri Verma stated that considering the age of the deceased i.e. 45 years, multiplier of 14 has to be considered and in this case, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13 for awarding compensation and considering the dependents (two sons and three daughters) of the deceased, deduction towards personal expenses is liable to be considered as 1/4, however, the Tribunal has considered it 1/3 for awarding compensation. Sri Verma also stated that towards conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has warded Rs. 3,000/- against funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate, as such, the award of the Tribunal on this aspect is liable to be modified.

On the aforesaid aspect of the case, reliance has been placed on the judgment(s) of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Somwati and others, 2020 (3) TAC 711 (S.C.).

Upon due consideration of aforesaid including the dependents (two sons and three daughters) of deceased and age of the deceased i.e. 45 years as also the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) particularly in paragraph No. 59 read with the judgment passed in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) particulalry paragraph Nos. 30 to 32 and 42 of the same, this Court is of the view that the deduction towards personal expenses is liable to be considered as 1/4 and multiplier of 14 is liable to be applied for the purposes of awarding just compensation and towards conventional heads, the claimants are entitled to enhanced amount as indicated in the judgment passed in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

In the judgment passed in the case of Smt. Somwati (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

"38. The three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410] has categorically laid down that apart from spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable. We feel ourselves bound by the above judgment of the three-Judge Bench. We, thus, cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of consortium awarded to each of the claimants is not sustainable.

39. We, thus, found the impugned judgments [Somwati v. Dharmendra Kumar, 2019 SCC OnLine All 3897] , [Sangita Devi v. New India Assurance Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10877] , [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Azmati Khatoon, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10530] , [Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Umarani, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 29630] , [Pinki v. Rajeev, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11882] , [Nanak Chand v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 62] , [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rinku Devi, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10493] of the High Court awarding consortium to each of the claimants in accordance with law which does not warrant any interference in this appeal. We, however, accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no justification for award of compensation under separate head "loss of love and affection". The appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed insofar as the award of compensation under the head "loss of love and affection".

40. We may also notice the three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant i.e. Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 327 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 254 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 905] The counsel for the appellant submits that this Court has granted only Rs 40,000 towards "loss of consortium" which is an indication that "consortium" cannot be granted to children. In the above case, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs 20,000 to the widow towards loss of consortium and Rs 10,000 to the minor daughter towards "loss of love and affection". The High Court has reduced [Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sangita Arya, 2016 SCC OnLine Utt 970] the amount of consortium from Rs 20,000 to Rs 10,000. Para 16 of the judgment is to the following effect : (Sangita Arya case [Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 327 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 254 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 905] , SCC p. 330, para 10)

"10. The consortium payable to the widow was reduced [Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sangita Arya, 2016 SCC OnLine Utt 970] by the High Court from Rs 20,000 (as awarded by MACT) to Rs 10,000; the amount awarded towards loss of love and affection to the minor daughters was reduced from Rs 10,000 to Rs 5000. However, the amount of Rs 5000 awarded by MACT towards funeral expenses was maintained."

41. This Court in the above case confined its consideration towards the income of the deceased and there was neither any claim nor any consideration that the consortium should have been paid to other legal heirs also. There being no claim for payment of consortium to other legal heirs, this Court awarded Rs 40,000 towards consortium. No such ratio can be deciphered from the above judgment that this Court held that consortium is only payable as a spousal consortium and consortium is not payable to children and parents.

42. It is relevant to notice the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410] which was delivered shortly after the above three-Judge Bench judgment of Sangeeta Arya [Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 327 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 254 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 905] specifically laid down that both spousal and parental consortium are payable which judgment we have already noticed above.

43. We may also notice one more three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in M.H. Uma Maheshwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [M.H. Uma Maheshwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC 400 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 274 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 744] decided on 12-6-2020. In the above case, the Tribunal had granted the amount of rupees one lakh towards loss of consortium to the wife and rupees three lakhs for all the appellants towards loss of love and affection. The High Court in the above case had reduced the amount of compensation in the appeal filed by the insurance company. The High Court held [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.H. Uma Maheshwari, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 6258] that by awarding the amount of rupees one lakh towards loss of consortium to the wife, the Tribunal had committed error while awarding rupees one lakh to the first appellant towards the head of "loss of love and affection". Allowing the appeal filed by the claimant, this Court maintained the order of MACT.

44. In the above judgment although rendered by the three-Judge Bench, there was no challenge to award of compensation of rupees one lakh towards the consortium and rupees three lakhs towards the loss of love and affection. The appeal was filed only by the claimants and not by the insurance company. The Court did not pronounce on the correctness of the amount awarded under the head "loss of love and affection".

45. We may also notice the additional submission advanced in Civil Appeal No. 3099 of 2020 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 8250 of 2020], Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rinku Devi & Others. As noted above, we have taken the view that the order [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rinku Devi, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10493] of the High Court awarding compensation towards "loss of love and affection" @ Rs 50,000 to each of the claimants is unjustified which is being set aside in this appeal. We, further, in the above appeal also set aside the directions of the High Court in para 9 by which statutory amount along with interest accrued thereon was directed to be deposited in Aasra fund.

46. In result, all the appeals are partly allowed. The award of compensation under the conventional head "loss of love and affection" is set aside. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals shall recompute the amount payable and take further steps in accordance with law.

47. All the appeals are partly allowed accordingly. No costs."

Thus, this Court is of the view that the claimants are also entitled to an amount under the head of consortium.

For the reasons aforesaid, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 30.04.2012 is modified and recalculated as under:-

Sl. No.

Heads

Calculation

Amount (Rupees)

1.

Annual Income

5000x12

Rs. 60,000/-

2.

Future Prospects

60,000x25/100

Rs. 15,000/-

3.

Total Annual Income

60,000+15,000

Rs. 75,000/-

4.

Deduction towards personal and living expenses

75,000x1/4

Rs. 18,750/-

5.

Dependency

75,000-18,750

Rs. 56,250/-

6.

Total Income after applying Multiplier of 14

56,250x14

Rs. 7,87,500/-

7.

Loss of Estate

Rs. 15,000/-

8.

Loss of Funeral Expenses

Rs. 15,000/-

9.

Loss of Consortium

40,000x5

Rs. 2,00,000/-/-

Total Compensation Awarded

Rs. 10,17,500/-

alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of Claim Petition till the date of actual payment.

Thus, the total compensation of Rs. 10,17,500/- payable to all the claimants/applicants in Cross Objection No. 4 of 2019 by the respondent/Company will be as per the total amount indicated in the preceding table with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of Claim Petition till the date of actual payment.

It is made clear that this Court has modified the judgment and award, under appeal, dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Tribunal only with respect to amount awarded and the Tribunal shall adjust the amount, if any, already paid/provided while providing the amount in terms of this judgment.

The Appeal and Cross Objection are allowed in above terms.

The Tribunal is directed to release the amount so deposited in compliance of the order of this Court dated 14.07.2015 to the Appellants in FAFO No. 110 of 2015 within one month from the date of production of certified copy of order, strictly in accordance with law including proper verification.

Let the records be returned to Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment for necessary compliance.

Order Date :- 1.12.2022

Arun/-