Punjab-Haryana High Court
Oriental Insurance Comp. Ltd vs Kuldeep Singh And Ors on 23 December, 2022
FAO-4050-2016(O&M)and
XOBJC-121-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-4050-2016 (O&M)and
XOBJC-121-2022
Reserved on: 20.12.2022
Pronounced on: December 23 , 2022
The OrientalInsurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Kuldeep Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate
for the respondents No. 1 to 4.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
This order of mine shall dispose of an appeal filed at the
instance of Insurance Company impugning the award dated
08.04.2016passed by learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chandigarh(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") as well as cross-
objections filed therein byrespondents No. 1 to 4- claimantsseeking
enhancement of compensation.
Brief facts of the case are that respondents No.1 to 4- claimants
(hereinafter referred to as "respondent No.1 to 4"), on account of death of
Mukesh Pundir in a road accident occurredon 09.09.2015, filed a claim
petition alleging rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.5
while driving the offending vehicle i.e. Car bearing registration No. HR-15-
G-0002. The learned Tribunal vide award dated 08.04.2016 granted
1 of 7
FAO-4050-2016(O&M)and
XOBJC-121-2022
Rs.18,45,000/- along with interest @7.5% per annum as compensation in
the following manner:-
Sr.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.)
1. Loss of Dependency Rs.16,20,000/-
2. Expenses incurred on Transportation, Rs. 25,000/-
funeral and last rites
3. Loss of love and affection Rs.2,00,000/-
TOTAL COMPENSATION: Rs.18,45,000/-
In the present appeal, the appellant- Insurance Company has
challenged the award dated 08.04.2016 by questioning the quantum of
compensation. On the other hand, respondentsNo. 1 to 4 have filed cross
objections praying for enhancement of the same.
Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits
that learned Tribunal wrongly assessed notional income of the deceased @
Rs10,000/- per month and the same was liable to be reduced. He further
contends that as the deceased was not earning anything at the time of
accident, therefore, future prospects should not be granted on the notional
income. He also submits that compensation awarded under the head of
'loss of love and affection' wasalso liable to be deducted.
On the other hand, learned counsel forrespondentsNo. 1 to 4
submits that considering the educational qualification of the deceased, his
notional income should have been considered atleast @ Rs 20,000/- per
month. He further contends that the deduction made onaccount of personal
expenses of the deceased should have been 1/3rd instead of ½. He also
contends that nothing has been awarded on account of 'loss of consortium'
and appropriate amount should be granted under the said head along with
other conventional heads.
2 of 7
FAO-4050-2016(O&M)and
XOBJC-121-2022
Having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and gone through the paper-book as well as cross- objections.I
am unable to accept the submissionsmade on behalf of learned counsel for
the appellant with regard to notional income of deceased. Though the
deceased died at the young age of 22 years and was not earning anything
at that point of time, however, while making the assessment of income, the
further economic losshas to be made afterconsidering various factors like
educational qualification and family background etc.
In this context, it is paramount to consider that the deceased,at
the time of accident, was pursuing Bachelor of Computer Application from
Kurukshetra University. It would not be too much to assume that had the
said accident not taken place, deceased would have earned handsomely.
In this regard, an inference can also be drawn from minimum rates of
wages for highly skilled labour in the State of Haryana in the year 2015
which was around Rs.9,700/- per month. Hence, considering the fact that
the deceased at his young age was pursuing professional course in the
field of computer education,I am of the view that his incomeought to have
been assessed @Rs 13,000/- per month.
The next question which isrequired to be considered by this
court is whether anything further is required to be added towards future
prospects or not? Considering the facts and circumstance of the present
case, it is equitable to believe that the deceased would have progressed in
life, based on his educational skills, had this accident not taken placeand
his salary would have definitely increased with the passage of time. It
cannot be denied that rise in cost of living has also to be considered while
making assessment of income for future. Therefore, grant of future
3 of 7
FAO-4050-2016(O&M)and
XOBJC-121-2022
prospects cannot be denied to deceased who, though was not earning
anything at the time of his accident and his income was assessed
notionally.
My aforesaid view is derived from the judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of "Smt. Meena Pawaia and Others vs.
Ashraf Ali and Others", reportable as 2022(1) RCR (Civil) 222. In the
aforesaid decision, Hon'ble the Supreme Court had the occasion to deal
with the above-mentioned issue and it has been held that future prospects
cannot be waived off in cases where notional income has been taken. The
relevant portion of paragraph 11 of aforementioned judgment is reproduced
hereunder:
"11......Because the price rise does affect them also
and there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for
sustenance. It is not expected that the deceased who was not serving
at all, his income is likely to remain static and his income would remain
stagnant. As observed in Pranay Sethi (Supra) to have the perception
that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is
contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always
intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that even in case of a deceased who
was not serving at the time of death and had no income at the time of
death, their legal heirs shall also be entitled to future prospects by
adding future rise in income as held by this court in the case of Pranay
Sethi (supra) i.e. addition of 40% of the income determined on
guesswork considering the educational qualification, family
background etc., where the deceased was below the age of 40
years........."
4 of 7
FAO-4050-2016(O&M)and
XOBJC-121-2022
Accordingly, in my view, learned Tribunal has rightly granted
future prospects, however, in view of above-mentioned judgment, the same
should be awarded @40% instead of 50%.
So far as deduction on account of personal expenses is
concerned, bachelor- deceased has been of 22 years at the time of
accident and claimants are his elder brothers and sister, therefore,
deduction of ½ to remain intact.
Besides this, with respectto the compensation awarded under
the other conventional heads, byapplying the principles of law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in"National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and Others",reported as 2017(4) R.C.R CIVIL 100, the
claimants areentitled forRs.16,500/-as compensation under the head of
funeral expenses (instead of Rs. 25,000/-) as well as a sum of Rs.16,500/-
towards loss of estate.
So far as grant of compensation under the head of 'loss of
consortium' is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant pressed upon
the fact that since claimants are brothers and sister of deceased, therefore,
loss of consortium (filial, parental and spousal) cannot be granted to them.
In this regard, I deem it appropriate to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of "Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs
Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others", reported as 2018(4) RCR
(Civil) 333, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court granted filial consortium to sister of
deceased. Relevant portion of para 8.7 of abovementioned judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow: -
8.7........"Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An
5 of 7
FAO-4050-2016(O&M)and
XOBJC-121-2022
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 lifetime. Children
are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in
the family unit......" (emphasis supplied)
Perusal of the abovereflects that filial consortium is not only
restricted to the parents but it is wide enough to include siblings as well.
Furthermore, young brothers and sisters need each other's strength and
association in their everyday life to offercommon experiences and
unfortunate death of any of the siblings is likely to be traumatic and
harmful. Therefore, in my view, an amount of Rs.44,000/- each is required
to be awarded on account of 'Loss of consortium' to respondents No.1 to 4
who are brothers and sister of deceased, based on well settled principle in
the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's (supra) and
Magma's case (supra).
Further, besides it, award of compensation under the head of
'loss of love and affection' is liable to be set aside in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Satinder Kaur @
Satwinder Kaur & Others Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd.",
reported as 2020(3) R.C.R Civil 75.
No other argument has been raised.
Thus, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, the
respondents No.1 to 4are entitled for following compensation: -
Sr.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.)
1. Annual income (Rs.13,000/- X 12) Rs.1,56,000/-
2. Future prospects @40% Rs.62,400/-
3. Deduction of ½ on account of personal Rs.1,09,200/-
expense(Rs.1,56,000+Rs.62,400=Rs.2,18,400)
6 of 7
FAO-4050-2016(O&M)and
XOBJC-121-2022
4. Multiplier of 18 as per age of 22 years Rs.19,65,600/-
5. Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/-
6. Loss of consortium (44,000 X 4) Rs.1,76,000/-
7. Loss of estate Rs.16,500/-
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.21,74,600/-
Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs.18,45,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs.3,29,600/-
The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not just in view of
facts and circumstances of the present case; rather as per the observations
made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of "Smt. Supe Dei and
othersVs. National Insurance Company Limited and other", reported as
2009(4) SCC 513, approved in a subsequent judgment titled as
"Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another",
reported as 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, interest needs to be enhanced to 9%
per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from
the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. Needless to
mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claims
shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation.
The present appeal as well as the X-objections are disposed of
in the manner indicated hereinabove.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
December 23, 2022 JUDGE
anil
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
7 of 7
