Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Sukhwinder Kaur And Others on 8 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103852
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:103852
FAO No.4222 of 2023(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
124 FAO No.4222 of 2023(O&M)
Date of Decision:08.08.2023
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Appellant
Versus
Sukhwinder Kaur and others ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellant.
*****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.(Oral)
1. Present appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance
Company (respondent No.2 in the claim petition), challenging the
award dated 27.02.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). While dealing
with the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, the tribunal assessed the compensation amount to
the tune of Rs.22,32,055/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from
the date of petition till its realization.
Ld. Tribunal further held that if the award amount is not
paid within three months, interest would be paid @ 7.5% per annum
over the awarded amount.
2. The ground of challenge taken by the appellant-Insurance
Company is explained in paragraph No.3 of the grounds of appeal.
For the sake of convenience, the same is reproduced hereunder:
'3. That in the present case, the Ld. Tribunal
had awarded a sum of Rs.16,500/-on account of
loss of estate, a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards loss
of funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.44,000/- as
consortium on account of loss of
consortium/spouse payable to wife/ appellant
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103852
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:103852
No.1. The Ld. Tribunal also awarded a sum of
Rs.44,000/- each to the appellants/ claimants
No.2 and 3 for loss of parental consortium and a
sum of Rs.44,000/- each to appellants /
claimants No.4 & 5 for loss of filial consortium.
In fact, the claimants are entitled to Rs.16,500/-
for funeral and last rites expenses, a sum of
Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium, in view
of recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
Judgment in Shri Ram General Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs Bhagat Singh Rawat and others CA Nos.
2410-2412/2023 decided on 27.03.2023, wherein
it was held that amount for loss of consortium
was to be given under single head and not to
each of the claimants. Our Hon'ble High Court
in case titled as Mrs. Usha Sharma and others vs
Ishwar Chand and others FAO-2196-2002
decided on 21.04.2023, relying upon judgment in
Bhagat Singh Rawat (supra) has held that the
claimants are to be granted a sum of Rs.40,000/-
in total under the head loss of consortium. Thus,
the impugned award is not sustainable in the
eyes of law and the same is liable to be set
aside.'
3. While referring to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others 2017 (4) R.C.R (Civil)1009 (law finder doc Id
No.918174), learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount
awarded under the head of consortium has to be fixed as Rs.40,000/-
only with the increase of 10% after every three years. Thus, appellant
submits that by adding 10% increase in the fixed amount of
consortium, same cannot be awarded under all the different heads to
all the claimants separately.
4. In other words, appellant submits that all the five
claimants were entitled to the total consortium amount of Rs.40,000/-
alongwith 10% increase after three years, which comes out to
Rs.44,000/- only, thus, awarding of 44,000/- to each of the claimants
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103852
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:103852
is against the principal laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi's
case(supra).
5. Learned counsel has also referred to the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Limited Vs.
Bhagat Singh Rawat and others 2023(2) TAC713.
6. I have heard the arguments addressed by learned counsel
for the appellant and also gone through the judgment relied upon, i.e.
Sri Ram General Insurance case (supra) and the Pranay Sethi's
case (supra), but no where finds any such discussion, which is
addressed by the counsel for the appellant.
In other words, neither the judgment says that each of the
claimants, is entitled separately for fixed amount of consortium as
Rs.40,000/-; nor does it say that fixed amount of Rs.40,000/- would be
paid to all the claimants.
7. Subsequent to the Pranay Sethi's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex
Court in a case of Smt. Anjali and others Vs. Lokendra Rathod and
others 2023(1) R.C.R (Civil) 229 (law finder doc id No.2081041),
while dealing with an appeal, held entitlement of consortium
Rs.44,000/- to each of the parents under the head of the 'filial
consortium' and Rs.44,000/- to each of the three children under the
head of 'parental consortium'. Thus, position of law has been made
clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court itself in a subsequent judgment that
is Smt. Anjali and others' (supra).
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103852
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:103852
8. Not only this, considering the judgments of Hon'ble Apex
Court i.e. Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and Smt. Anjali's case
(supra), in an appeal for enhancement of compensation, this Court has
also taken note of said proposition and considering the legislation to
be beneficial law for the victims has took a compassionate view and
followed the spirit of the judgment held in the case of Smt. Anjali's
case (supra). For the said purpose, observation made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited
v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130
regarding meaning and the purpose of consortium, is worth to be
noticed. For the sake of convenience, the relevant extract of the
judgement 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."
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103852
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:103852
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. 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."
9. Considering all the aforementioned circumstances and
the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I do not find any strength in
the submission addressed by the counsel, thus, the present appeal
deserves to the dismissed.
10. As the appeal has been dealt with on merits, this Court
does not find any reason to deal with the issue raised in the
application i.e. CM-13920-CII-2023, thus, application stands
dismissed.
[SANJAY VASHISTH]
JUDGE
August 08, 2023
rashmi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/no
Whether reportable? Yes/no
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103852
5 of 5
