Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Kaur And Ors vs Satpal And Ors on 8 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
217-2
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M)
Decided on : 08.08.2023
Paramjit Kaur and others
. . . Appellant(s)
Versus
Satpal and others
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Kamal Deep Singh Sidhu, Advocate, and
Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate
for respondent No.3 - Insurance Company.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the
appellants/petitioners/claimants (hereinafter referred as 'claimants') in
MACT Case No. 29 of 1998 dated 26.03.1998 for modification of
award/judgment dated 20.10.2000 passed by Ld. Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. Tribunal') by way of
seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, on account of death of
Surjit Singh.
2. The Claimants in the MACT case were widow (Claimant No.
1), daughters (Claimant No. 2 and Claimant No. 3), son (Claimant No. 4),
father (Claimant No. 5) and mother (Claimant No. 6) of the deceased - Surjit
Singh.
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) -2-
Counsel for the appellants, at this stage, informs the Court that
Maya Kaur (mother of the deceased) had already expired before filing of the
appeal. Thus, FAO-1618-2002 had been filed by the Mukhtiar Singh (father
of the deceased) only, while FAO-1619-2002 has been filed by the widow,
daughters and son of the deceased - Surjit Singh (Claimants No. 1 to 4).
Learned counsel for the appellants further informs the Court that even
Mukhtiar Singh (sole appellant in FAO-1619-2002), has died during the
pendency of the present appeal.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the fatal accident took
place on 14.02.1998 when the deceased - Surjit Singh was coming from
Dhakansu to his house at Rajpura. He was driving a scooter bearing No. PB-
39/7708 at a normal speed on the left hand side of the road, while, Satpal
Singh (driver) and Jaspal Singh (pillion rider) were behind him on the
scooter bearing No. HR-07/1170. At about 03:15 p.m, a truck bearing no.
RJ-13G/0159 came from the Chandigarh side and struck with the scooter of
the deceased- Surjit Singh. Surjit Singh fell down, got caught in the lower
portion of the truck and died on the spot. The said accident was witnessed by
Satpal Singh and Jaspal Singh who were on their scooter behind the scooter
of deceased - Surjit Singh. For the said accident, FIR No. 33, dated
14.02.1998, under Sections 279/304-A IPC, was registered at Police station,
Rajpura. (Ex.A1).
4. Claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of The Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 for seeking compensation of Rs. 15 Lakhs before the Ld.
Tribunal pleading that Satpal - Driver of the truck (Respondent No.1) was
driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner, that led to the fatal
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) -3-
accident.
5. After completion of the pleadings, Ld. Tribunal framed the
following issues:
I. Whether the death of Surjit Singh (who died at the spot)
was caused in a motor vehicle accident on February 14,
1998 owing to rash and negligent driving of truck No.
RJ-13G/0159 by Satpal Respondent No.1? OPP
II. To what amount of compensation, are the claimants
entitled to and from whom? OPA
However, on 18.10.2000, an additional issue was framed by Ld.
Tribunal:
III. Whether Satpal - Respondent No. 1 was not holding a
valid driving license at the time of the alleged accident?
OPR
6. For proving the issue No.1, Claimants examined Satpal Singh
as AW-2, who was the eye witness of the accident and he categorically
deposed that the deceased - Surjit Singh was driving the scooter at a normal
speed on the correct left hand side of the road and the accident occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing No. RJ-13G/0159. The truck
driver did not blow any horn and struck against the scooter of deceased -
Surjit Singh from behind. The truck driver managed to escape from the spot
and was later identified as Satpal - Respondent No.1. He left his pillion rider
- Jaspal Singh at the spot and reported the matter to the police. The post
morterm of the body of the deceased - Surjit Singh was conducted at A.P
Jain Hospital, Rajpura and was proved as Ex.A.2.
7. Respondent No.1 failed to appear before the Ld. Tribunal and
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) -4-
statement of Satpal Singh (AW-2) remained unimpeached and unrebutted in
the cross examination. Further, no oral or documentary evidence was placed
on file by the respondents to contradict the deposition of Satpal Singh (AW-
1). In view of the deposition of the witnesses and evidence on record, Ld.
Tribunal decided the Issue No. 1 in favour of Claimants.
8. It was claimed by Claimants that the deceased Surjit Singh was
42 years old at the time of the accident and was having a robust health. He
was engaged in the agriculture and dairy farming and used to earn
Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture while, Rs. 5,000 per month from
dairy farming. Paramjit Kaur - widow of deceased (AW-1) further stated
that the whole family was totally dependent on the earnings of the deceased
- Surjit Singh and father and mother of the deceased are of very old age and
suffering from various ailments.
9. Ajaib Singh (AW-3) also appeared as a witness and deposed
that he knew deceased - Surjit Singh and had leased 6 acres land to
deceased- Surjit Singh in 1966-67. In the cross- examination of Paramjit
Kaur (AW-1), she deposed that name of the deceased - Surjit Kaur is
entered as a cultivator, however, Ajaib Singh (AW-3) deposed that the said
transaction was only oral in nature and not reported to the Patwari. Further,
it was admitted that there was no land in the name of the deceased - Surjit
Singh. The claimants further pleaded that Mukhtiar Singh - father of the
deceased (Claimant No. 5) owned some land (Ex.A3), however, even that
land was shown to be self-cultivated in records.
10. Thus, considering the statements of the witnesses and the
evidences available on record, Ld. Tribunal came to the conclusion that the
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) -5-
deceased - Surjit Singh used to earn Rs. 1200-1300/- from agriculture while
claimants were not able to prove the income of the deceased - Surjit Singh
from dairy farming. Ld. Tribunal further held that the deceased - Surjit
Singh would have been spending Rs. 200-300/- on himself, thus, the
claimants were dependent on the deceased - Surjit Singh to the extent of
Rs.1000/-.
11. Thus, Ld. Tribunal determined the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs. 1,000/- per month. Age of the deceased was assessed as 42
years and a multiplier of 14 was applied. Ld. Tribunal further awarded Rs.
2,000/- as funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal was Rs. 1,70,000/-alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum
from the date of the filing of the application till realization.
However, Ld. Tribunal held that the father of the deceased
being owner of the land and mother of deceased being dependent on her
husband are not entitled to any compensation. It was further held that the
Satpal (Respondent No.1) was having a valid driving license.
12. Thus, all the respondents i.e Driver - Satpal (Respondent No.1),
Owner - Jai Kumar (Respondent No.2) and National Insurance Company
were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of
compensation.
Appellants/Petitioners/Claimants have filed the present appeal
seeking enhancement of the compensation as awarded by the Ld. Tribunal.
13. While addressing arguments, counsel for the appellants submits
that the Ld. Tribunal has erred in determining the monthly salary of the
deceased - Surjit Singh as only Rs. 1,200-1300/-per month. Counsel for the
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) -6-
appellants submits that the deceased - Surjit Singh was an able bodied
person and was engaged in agriculture as well as dairy farming. Ld. Tribunal
failed to appreciate the fact that Mukhtiar Singh (father of the deceased) is
an old aged person and is suffering from defect in his backbone, thus, the
land owned by Mukhtiar Singh was cultivated by his deceased son - Surjit
Singh. Thus, Ld. Tribunal has committed an error in treating the deceased as
an agricultural labourer and determining such a low amount as his income.
14. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 3 -
Insurance Company submits that the Ld. Tribunal has rightly determined the
monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 1200-1300/- per month. He submits
that it is an admitted fact that there was no land in the name of the deceased
- Surjit Singh and also no documentary proof exists of leasing of land by
Ajaib Singh (AW-4) to the deceased - Surjit Singh. He further submits that
claimants have totally failed in proving any income of the deceased from
dairy farming and said argument has been raised by the claimants only for
the purpose of inflating the claim.
15. It is further averred by the Counsel for the appellants that in
consonance with the well settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2017(4)
RCR (Civil) 1009 : Law Finder Doc Id #918174 and Smt. Sarla Verma and
others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil)
77 : Law Finder Doc ID #188882, although, the Ld. Tribunal has rightly
applied the multiplier of 14, but has failed to provide enhancement in the
shape of future prospects to the tune of 25% as the deceased - Surjit Singh
was self-employed and was of the age of 42 years (between 40 to 50 years of
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) -7-
age) at the time of his death.
16. He further submits that Ld. Tribunal has made a deduction of
Rs. 200-300/- on account of personal expenses of the deceased which is not
based on any plausible reasoning. In view of the law laid down by the Apex
Court, the deduction should be 1/4th as the number of dependents of the
deceased are six. He further prays for Rs.50,000/- on account of funeral
expenses, Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of estate and Rs. 44,000/- each on
account of loss of spousal consortium to Appellant No.1 & loss of parental
consortium to Appellants No. 2, 3 and 4. He further submits that interest on
the said amount should be maintained @ 12% as awarded by Ld. Tribunal.
17. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company
submits that amount of compensation has been rightly awarded by the Ld.
Tribunal and there is no need of causing any interference in the well-
reasoned award passed by the Ld. Tribunal.
18. I have gone through the impugned award and the calculations
mentioned therein, heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused
the authorities cited.
19. There is no doubt that in a situation where the different Courts
at different times were at diversions in their opinion and in the absence of
any clarification by the law makers despite recommendations by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, all the major issues were referred to the larger Bench and
accordingly, Constitution Bench was constituted in Pranay Sethi's case
(supra). Thus, for the purpose of reaching out to appropriate amount of
compensation for adjudging the rights of the claimants, guidelines laid down
in the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi's case (supra),
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) -8-
would help the Courts.
20. In a recent judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court titled as
Manusha Sreekumar and others v. The United India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 858, authored by HMJ Surya Kant, the Apex Court
reiterated the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is a beneficial
legislation. The relevant extract is reproduced herebelow:
"16. The act being a social welfare legislation operates
through economic conception in the form of compensation,
which renders way to corrective justice. Compensation acts as
a fulcrum to bring equality between the wrongdoer and the
victim, whenever the equality gets disturbed by the
wrongdoer's harm to the victim. It also endeavours to make
good the human suffering to the extent possible and to also
have families which have lost their breadwinners from being
pushed to vagrancy. Adequate compensation is considered to
be fair and equitable compensation. Courts shoulder the
responsibility of deciding adequate compensation on a case-
to-case basis. However, it is imperative for the Courts to
grant such compensation which has nexus to the actual loss."
21. For the purpose of assessing the amount of compensation
payable to the claimants, this Court will now deal with all the aspects in
order.
I. ASSESSMENT OF MONTHLY SALARY:
I.(A) Determination of Salary of deceased
22. In order to compute the amount of compensation payable to the
claimants, the first aspect to be determined is the monthly salary of the
deceased. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased - Surjit
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) -9-
Singh was an able bodied person, thus, Ld. Tribunal has erred in determining
the salary of deceased as merely Rs. 1,200-1300/-. Counsel for the
appellants states that deceased - Surjit Singh used to do agriculture work on
land owned by his father Mukhtiar Singh as well as on 6 acres of land leased
to him by Ajaib Singh (AW-4). Apart from this, deceased was also engaged
in dairy farming and used to own four buffaloes. Thus, the income of the
deceased should have been determined as Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum from
agriculture as well as Rs.5,000/- per month from dairy farming.
23. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 -
Insurance Company argues that the Ld. Tribunal has rightly determined the
income of the deceased as Rs. 1,200-1300/- as it is an admitted fact that
deceased - Surjit Singh did not own any land in his name. He further
submits that as far as land owned by father of the deceased is concerned, in
the record, it is clearly mentioned that land is cultivated by the owner
himself that is Mukhtiar Singh and claimants have also failed to prove any
documentary evidence regarding the alleged leased land. Thus, the income
determined by the Ld. Tribunal is worth to be maintained.
24. This Ccourt has gone through facts of the case and contentions
of both the counsel. This Court has also gone through the judgment of the
Apex Court in Chandra alias Chanda alias Chandraram and Anr. V.
Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Ors., (2022) 1 SCC 198 which is recently
reiterated by the Apex Court in Manusha Shreekumar's case (supra) in
which the Court aptly held that in the absence of proof of income of the
deceased, the minimum wages notification along with some amount of guess
work that is not completely detached with reality shall act as a yardstick to
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) - 10 -
determine the income of the deceased. For the sake of convenience,
Paragraph 19 of the Manusha Shreekumar's case (supra), has been
reproduced herebelow:
"19. Applying the above parameters to the instant
case, there exists sufficient evidence to show that the
Deceased, undoubtedly, was a fish vendor-cum-driver with a
valid license. The certificate issued by the Kerala Motor
Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board, certifying the
Deceased as the driver of light motor goods vehicle bearing
Registration No.KL-36-B-7822 under the ownership of one
Shri Prakashan has been proved on record. Further, the
Deceased had also paid all his subscriptions to the Board
from April 2012 until the month he died. We find no reason to
doubt that the Deceased was a driver at the time of his death.
This Court in Chandra Alias Chanda Alias Chandraram
and Anr. v. MukeshKumar Yadav and Ors., has aptly held
that in the absence of a salary certificate, theminimum
wages notification along with some amount of guesswork
that is not completelydetached from reality shall act as a
yardstick to determine the income of the deceased."
25. This Court has also gone through the judgment of the co-
ordinate bench of this Court in Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. V.
Beant Kaur, 2020 ACJ 2163: Law Finder Doc Id # 1434464, wherein it
was held that the in cases where no evidence is brought on record by the
claimants to prove the income of the deceased/ injured, it is the minimum
wages as fixed under the Minimum Wages Act which should be taken as a
'primary' guiding factor while assessing the income of the deceased. For the
sake of convenience, Para 11 and 12 of the judgment is reproduced
herebelow:
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) - 11 -
"11. There is merit in the proposition that in cases
where no evidence is brought on record by the claimants to
prove the income of the deceased/injured, it is the minimum
wages as fixed under the Minimum Wages Act which should
be taken as the 'primary' guiding factor while assessing the
income for the purpose of calculation of the compensation
to be awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act.
12. At the same time, it is not possible to hold that in
all situations where no documentary evidence is brought on
record, it is the minimum wage as fixed under the Minimum
Wages Act which alone is to be assessed as the income of the
deceased/injured dehors the facts and circumstances of a
particular case. Doubtlessly, minimum wage fixed under the
Minimum Wages Act provides a sound criterion/guideline and
benchmark to assess the income of the deceased/injured in
such cases, but at the same time, the tribunal/Court cannot be
confined or restricted to the same. It is open to the
tribunal/Court to assess the income at a rate which may be
higher than the minimum wage so notified keeping in view the
evidence on record in that particular case."
26. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and
followed by coordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is of the view that for
the purpose of assessing the amount of compensation payable to the
claimants, minimum wages prevalent in the state at the time of the accident
should be considered to determine the monthly income of the deceased. In
the case in hand, accident occurred on 14.02.1998 in the jurisdiction of the
Police Station, Rajpura, Punjab, thus, the minimum wages prevalent in the
state of Punjab at the time of accident is applicable. For the sake of
convenience, Table No. II of the notification No. ST/CPI/MW/3302 dated
JAWALA RAM 07.11.2000 published by Labour Department, Punjab (Research and
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) - 12 -
Statistical Section) regarding minimum rates of wages of unskilled workers
is reproduced herebelow:
TABLE No.II
Minimum rates of wages of unskilled workers in respect of employment will now be :-
Sr. No. As on Monthly (in Rs.) Daily (in Rs.)
1. 1.7.1995 1350.00 51.95
2. 1.9.1995 1378.20 53.03
3. 1.3.1996 1420.50 54.65
4. 1.9.1996 1448.70 55.73
5. 1.3.1997 1509.80 58.07
6. 1.9.1997 1542.70 59.33
7. 1.3.1998 1585.00 60.95
8. 1.9.1998 1641.40 63.11
9. 1.3.1999 1749.50 67.25
10. 1.3.2000 1795.50 69.05
11. 1.9.2000 1843.50 70.85
27. Thus, as per entry No. 7 in the Schedule reproduced above, as
on 01.03.1998 that is on the date of the accident, minimum wages prevailing
in the state of Punjab was Rs. 1,585/- per month or Rs. 60.95 daily for
unskilled workers. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the
notification issued by Labour Department, Punjab, the monthly income of
the deceased is hereby assessed as Rs. 1,585/- per month.
Accordingly decided.
I.(B) Future Prospects:
28. Counsel for the appellants further argues that the Ld. Tribunal
has failed to provide enhancement towards future prospects to the salary of
the deceased in consonance with guidelines laid down by the apes Court in
Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Thus, the claimants are entitled to
enhancement of 25% as future prospects as the deceased - Surjit Singh was
self-employed in agriculture and dairy farming and was 42 years of age
JAWALA RAM which lies between 40 and 50 years of age. Counsel refers to Para 61 (iv) of
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) - 13 -
the said judgment, which is reproduced herebelow:
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:-
x-------x-------x--------x--------x--------x-------
x--------x-------x------x--------x------x
(iv) In case the deceased was self-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.
29. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court, this court deems it fit to add future prospects to the tune of 25% to the
monthly salary of the deceased - Surjit Singh. Hence, an amount of Rs.
396/- (25% of Rs.1,585) is added as future prospects and thus, the monthly
income of the deceased comes out to be Rs. 1,981/- (Rs. 1,585/- + Rs.
396/-).
I.(C) Deduction Towards Personal Expenses:
30. In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi's
case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has affirmed the formula laid down in
Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another,
2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 : Law Finder Doc Id #188882, for the purpose of
JAWALA RAM calculation of deduction towards personal expenses. The relevant para No.14
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) - 14 -
of the said judgment says as under:-
"14. Though in some cases the deduction 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 standardized deductions. Having
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 (1/3rd) where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where
the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one-
fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members
exceed six."
31. As pointed out by counsel for the appellants (claimants) there
are total six claimants in the MACT case filed before the Ld. Tribunal, thus,
deduction of salary of the deceased would 1/4th of the income assessed.
32. On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 -
Insurance Company argues that although, the claim petition has been filed
by six claimants but in the award passed by Ld. Tribunal, there is a specific
finding in Paragraph No. 25 and 26 of the impugned award that father and
mother of the deceased are not entitled to any compensation. For the sake of
convenience, the relevant extract of the award passed by the Ld. Tribunal is
reproduced herebelow:
"25. Mukhtiar Singh claimant is the owner of the land.
Therefore, he is a self dependent person. He was not
dependent on his son Surjit Singh. Therefore, he is not
entitled to any compensation.
26. Maya Kaur claimant was dependent on her husband
Mukhtiar Singh who owns agricultural land and therefore,
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) - 15 -
Maya Kaur claimant was also not entitled to any
compensation."
33. Be that as it may, both the Counsels are ad-idem to the fact that
in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case
(supra), the amount of deduction is same if the dependents fall in the
category of four to six. Thus, this Court assesses deduction for the personal
expenses of the deceased as 1/4th of the income of the deceased. Therefore,
Appellants (petitioners/claimants) would be entitled to receive 3/4th of the
remnant amount of salary of the deceased, which comes out to Rs. 1,485/-
per month.
Accordingly decided.
I.(D) Annual Salary of Deceased:
34. Now, by multiplying the monthly salary of the deceased - Surjit
Singh i.e. Rs. 1,485/- with 12 months i.e. one year period, the total
entitlement of compensation of appellants (claimants) would be of Rs.
17,829/- per annum.
Accordingly decided.
II. MULTIPLIER:
35. Counsel for the appellants (claimants) submits that multiplier of
14 as applied by the Ld. Tribunal is in consonance with the law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court, and is thus, worth to be maintained.
Said submission of the Counsel for the appellants is also not
opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 - Insurance Company.
36. This Court has gone through the submissions and the findings
recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) as well
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) - 16 -
as in Sarla Verma's Case (supra). Undoubtedly, as per the schedule given
in Sarla Verma's case (supra), for the age group of 40 to 50 years, applicable
multiplier is 14.
Thus, this Court is of the view that multiplier as applied by the
Ld. Tribunal is worth to be maintained.
III. LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME:
37. This way, total amount of compensation, by applying the
multiplier of 14, would be of Rs. 2,49,606/- (Rs. 1,485 x 12 x 14).
Accordingly decided.
IV. ASSESSMENT QUA COMPENSATION OF LOSS OF
ESTATE, FUNERAL EXPENSES AND LOSS OF
CONSORTIUM:
38. Out of all the aforesaid three heads, Ld. Tribunal has awarded
only Rs. 2000/- qua funeral expenses. Surprisingly, no amount of
compensation was even assessed towards loss of estate and loss of
consortium. Keeping in view the amount awarded in another judgment by
the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. Smt. Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod
and others 2023 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 229: Law Finder Doc ID #2081014
lump-sum amount towards of Rs. 20,000/- can be considered towards loss of
estate. The amount of Rs. 2000/- awarded by the Ld. Tribunal seems to be
very nominal, thus, considering the date of accident i.e. 07.02.2000, an
appropriate amount of Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses is justified. For the
accident, which took place in the year 2010, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt.
Anjali's case (supra)awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards funeral expenses.
39. The term "consortium" has been defined by the Hon'ble Apex
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) - 17 -
Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. For the sake of convenience,
the relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced herebelow:
"21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra) 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 consortium',and `filial consortium'.
The right to consortium would include the company, care,
help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased,
which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it
would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which
allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of
"company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of
the other in every 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."
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents 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 lifetime. 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.
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) - 18 -
Modern jurisdictions world over have recognized 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. The amount awarded to the parents is a
compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and
companionship of the deceased child.
40. As far as, awarding of amount of compensation towards the
head of 'loss of consortium' is concerned, in Pranay Sethi's case (supra),
Hon'ble Apex Court decided it as Rs. 40,000/- without clarifying the
different relations of the claimants with the deceased. However,
subsequently, in Smt. Anjali's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court,
awarded amount of compensation in the form of 'spousal consortium' and
'parental consortium', separately Rs. 40,000/- to each of the claimants, along
with 10% increase after every three years. In the present case also, if the
same principle is applied, in that situation, all the four appellants (claimants
in FAO-1619-2002) would be entitled for Rs. 44,000/- each, towards the
heads of 'loss of spousal consortium' and 'loss of parental consortium".
Therefore, it is held that appellants (claimants) are entitled for an amount of
Rs. 44,000/- each under the heads of 'loss of spousal consortium' and 'loss of
parental consortium'.
At this stage, counsel for the respondents argues that in Para
Nos. 25 & 26 of the MACT award, it has been explicitly held that the father
and the mother of the deceased are not entitled to any compensation, which
has already been reproduced.
JAWALA RAM 41. This Court is well satisfied with the reasoning given by the Ld.
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) - 19 -
Tribunal. Moreover, once the mother has died ever before the institution of
appeal, and is not a party in appeal, question of granting compensation to her
doesn't even arise.
As far as, father of the deceased - Mukhtiar Singh, is concerned
(who has died during the pendency of the appeal) he could have been
entitled to only 'filial consortium' to the tune of Rs.44,000. However, with
the death of the father - Mukhtiar Singh during the pendency of the appeal,
the same cannot be awarded to him. Thus, in view of the facts discussed
above, appeal (FAO-1618-2002) is rendered infructuous. A separate order
in this regard has already been passed in FAO-1618-2002.
42. For the sake of convenience, a comparative table representing
the amount of compensation awarded by the Ld. Tribunal and this Court is
given below:-
Sr. Head Compensation Compensation Awarded
No. awarded by Ld. by this Court
Tribunal
1. Income Rs. 1200/1300/- Rs. 1,585/- per month
per month
2. Future Prospects NIL Rs. 396/- (i.e. 25% of the
income)
3. Deduction towards Rs. 200/300/- Rs. 495/- (i.e. 1/4th of
personal expenses [Rs. 1,585/- + Rs. 396/-] )
4. Total Annual Rs. 12,000/-(Rs. Rs. 17,829/- (i.e. 3/4th of
Income 1,000 x 12) [Rs. 1,585/- + Rs. 396] x
12)
6. Loss of Dependency Rs. 1,68,000/- Rs. 2,49,606/- ( i.e. Rs.
17,829 x 14)
7. Funeral Expenses Rs. 2000/- Rs. 25,000-/-
8. Loss of Estate NIL Rs.20,000-/-
9. Loss of Spousal NIL Rs. 44,000-/-
Consortium
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) - 20 -
10. Loss of Parental NIL Rs. 1,32,000-/- (Rs.
Consortium to each 44,000 x 3)
of the three children
11. Loss of Filial NIL -NIL-
Consortium to
parents i.e. mother
and father of the
deceased
12. Total Compensation Rs. 1,70,000/- Rs. 4,70,606/-
to be Paid
CALCULATION OF INTEREST:
43. Counsel for the appellants further submits that the rate of
interest awarded by the Ld. Tribunal i.e. at 12% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till its realization is worth to be maintained.
However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 -
Insurance Co., submits that the rate of interest should not be over the
awarded amount and therefore, it should not be more than 6% per annum.
44. I have gone through the judgments cited by counsel for the
appellants (claimants) and thus, I deem it appropriate to grant the rate of
interest at 7.5% per annum.
45. Thus, keeping in view the aim of this beneficial legislation of
providing relief to the victims or their families, the total compensation
payable to the appellants (claimants) is Rs. 4,70,606/- along with interest at
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of
payment of compensation to the appellants (petitioners/claimants).
46. Needless to mention that out of the total payable compensation
amount, already paid amount (if any) in compliance to the impugned award
would be adjusted.
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:105556
FAO-1619-2002 (O&M) - 21 -
Therefore, by partly modifying the award, appeal is allowed
with the terms indicated here-above.
Civil Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stands disposed
of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
August 08, 2023
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
in FAO-1619-2002
PARAMJIT KAUR AND ORS V/S SATPAL AND ORS
Present: Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate
for the applicant/respondent No.3-Insurance company.
Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate
for the non-applicant/appellants.
-.-
1. This is an application under Section 152 read with Section
151 CPC for correction of typographical error in the judgment dated
08.08.2023 passed by this Court in FAO-1619-2002.
2. Briefly stated while hearing and deciding the
aforementioned appeal, this Court had come to the conclusion that
mother of the deceased expired prior to filing of the appeal and even
Mukhtiar Singh, who is father of the deceased, also expired during
pendency of the appeal, therefore, no compensation under the head
'Filial Consortium' could be awarded. Specific observation/finding in
this regard was recorded in para No.41 of the judgment dated 08.08.2023
which reads as under:-
"41. This Court is well satisfied with the reasoning given by
the Ld. Tribunal. Moreover, once the mother has died ever
before the institution of appeal, and is not a party in appeal,
question of granting compensation to her doesn't even arise.
As far as, father of the deceased - Mukhtiar Singh, is
concerned (who has died during the pendency of the appeal)
he could have been entitled to only 'filial consortium' to the
tune of Rs.44,000. However, with the death of the father -
Mukhtiar Singh during the pendency of the appeal, the
same cannot be awarded to him. Thus, in view of the facts
discussed above, appeal (FAO-1618-2002) is rendered
infructuous. A separate order in this regard has already been
passed in FAO-1618-2002."
3. However, while drawing comparative table in para No.42 of
the said judgment, an error crept in due to inadvertent typographical
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
in FAO-1619-2002
mistake, and at Serial No. 11 of the table, an amount of Rs.44,000/- has
been stated to be awarded on account of loss of 'Filial Consortium' to the
father of the deceased, which is factually incorrect. Existing para 42 of
the judgment reads as under:-
Sr. Head Compensatio Compensation
No. n awarded by awarded by this
Ld. Tribunal Court
1. Income Rs. Rs. 1,585/- per
1200/1300/- month
per month
2. Future Prospects NIL Rs. 396/- (i.e.
25% of the
income)
3. Deduction towards Rs. 200/300/- Rs. 495/- (i.e.
personal expenses 1/4th of [Rs.
1,585/- + Rs.
396/-] )
4. Total Annual Rs. 12,000/- Rs. 17,829/- (i.e.
Income (Rs. 1,000 x 3/4th of [Rs.
12) 1,585/- + Rs.
396] x 12)
6. Loss of Dependency Rs. 1,68,000/- Rs. 2,49,606/-
( i.e. Rs. 17,829 x
14)
7. Funeral Expenses Rs. 2000/- Rs. 25,000-/-
8. Loss of Estate NIL Rs.20,000-/-
9. Loss of Spousal NIL Rs. 44,000-/-
Consortium
10. Loss of Parental NIL Rs. 1,32,000-/-
Consortium to each (Rs. 44,000 x 3)
of the three children
11. Loss of Filial NIL Rs. 44,000 (to
Consortium to the father of the
parents i.e. mother deceased)
and father of the
deceased
12. Total Compensation Rs.1,70,000/- Rs. 5,14,606/-
to be Paid
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
in FAO-1619-2002
Pointing out the above discrepancy, present application has
been filed.
4. Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, who is present in the Court, also
points out that while recording presence of the respective counsel in the
judgment dated 08.08.2023, his name did not find mention, and
appearance of Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Kamal Deep Singh
Sidhu, Advocate, has been marked for the appellants, whereas they put in
appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1 - Satpal son of Ram Labh.
Thus, Mr. Vivek Suri also prays that necessary correction in the presence
may also be carried out in the final judgment dated 08.08.2023, and his
presence may be marked for the appellants, while presence of Ms.
Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate, and Mr. Kamal Deep Singh Sidhu, Advocate,
may be marked for respondent No. 1.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record to ascertain the factual position as noticed here-in-above.
In the paper book of FAO-1619-2002, Power of
Attorney/Vakalatnama of Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate, is
available, which was filed on 15.12.2018, and signed by Satpal -
respondent No. 1.
6. An error, on both counts indeed has occurred in the
judgment dated 08.08.2023, which is typographical one, and needs to be
rectified.
7. Accordingly, present application is allowed and it is ordered
as under:-
(a) In the judgment dated 08.08.2023, instead of earlier
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
in FAO-1619-2002
recorded presence of respective counsel for the parties, the
same be read as under:-
"PRESENT: Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Kamal Deep Singh Sidhu,
Advocate,
and Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate,
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate,
for respondent No. 3-Insurance
Company."
(b) Amount of Rs. 44,000/- as recorded/depicted at Serial No.
11 of the table in paragraph No. 42 of the judgment dated
08.08.2023 be read as 'Nil', and at Serial No. 12 of the said
table, the amount of 'Rs. 5,14,606' be read as
'Rs.4,70,606/-'. Accordingly, the correct table in para 42 of
the judgment shall read as under:-
"Sr Head Compensation Compensation
. awarded by Ld. awarded by this
No. Tribunal Court
1. Income Rs. 1200/1300/- Rs. 1,585/- per
per month month
2. Future NIL Rs. 396/- (i.e. 25%
Prospects of the income)
3. Deduction Rs. 200/300/- Rs. 495/- (i.e.
towards 1/4th of [Rs.
personal 1,585/- + Rs.
expenses 396/-] )
4. Total Annual Rs. 12,000/- (Rs. Rs. 17,829/- (i.e.
Income 1,000 x 12) 3/4th of [Rs.
1,585/- + Rs. 396]
x 12)
6. Loss of Rs. 1,68,000/- Rs. 2,49,606/- ( i.e.
Dependency Rs. 17,829 x 14)
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
in FAO-1619-2002
7. Funeral Rs. 2000/- Rs. 25,000-/-
Expenses
8. Loss of Estate NIL Rs.20,000-/-
9. Loss of NIL Rs. 44,000-/-
Spousal
Consortium
10. Loss of NIL Rs. 1,32,000-/-
Parental (Rs. 44,000 x 3)
Consortium to
each of the
three children
11. Loss of Filial NIL -NIL-
Consortium to
parents i.e.
mother and
father of the
deceased
12. Total Rs.1,70,000/- Rs. 4,70,606/-"
Compensation
to be Paid
(c) In paragraph No. 45 of the judgment dated 08.08.2023, the
total amount of compensation payable to the appellants
(claimants) be read as 'Rs.4,70,606/-' instead of
'Rs.5,14,606/-'. Accordingly, para 45 of the judgment, after
its correction shall read as under:-
"45. Thus, keeping in view the aim of this
beneficial legislation of providing relief to the
victims or their families, the total compensation
payable to the appellants (claimants) is Rs.4,70,606/-
along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date
of filing of claim petition till the date of payment of
compensation to the appellants
(petitioners/claimants)."
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
in FAO-1619-2002
8. After carrying out aforementioned corrections, correct copy
of the judgment dated 08.08.2023, in FAO-1619-2002, be again uploaded
on the web portal of this Court, along with this order.
Disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
September 04, 2023
Lavisha
JAWALA RAM
2023.09.06 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
