Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sheetu And Ors vs Sajjan Singh And Ors on 6 August, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100588
FAO-2936-2009 (O&M) [1]
330
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-2936-2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 06.08.2024
Sheetu and others
...Appellants
Versus
Sajjan Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. The widow, daughter and parents of the deceased-Surender
Singh have filed the present appeal for modification of award dated
25.02.2009 and have prayed that the amount which has been awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be enhanced.
2. The factum with respect to the death of Surender Singh in an
accident which had taken place on 27.05.2008 and the fact that respondent
No.1 was the driver and respondent No.2 was the owner of the offending
vehicle and respondent No.3 was the insurer of the offending vehicle, have
not been disputed before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that an
amount of Rs.10,95,000/- has been awarded as compensation and the said
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100588
FAO-2936-2009 (O&M) [2]
amount deserves to be suitably enhanced. It is submitted that future
prospects have not been awarded whereas the claimants are entitled to an
addition of 40% of the salary on account of future prospects, keeping in
view the settled law. It is submitted that with respect to loss of estate, no
amount has been awarded and thus, on the said account also, an amount of
Rs.15,000/- is due. With respect to funeral expenses, it has been submitted
that an inadequate amount of Rs.7086/- has been awarded whereas the
appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/-. On the aspect of loss of
consortium, it is submitted that no amount has been awarded whereas an
amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is due (Rs.40,000/- x 3). It is submitted that in
addition to 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses, an amount of
Rs.2000/- has been deducted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on
account of fuel and maintenance charges, which is not permissible and only
1/3rd expenses towards personal expenses are to be deducted. Learned
counsel for the appellants has further submitted that an enhanced amount of
Rs.9,58,932/- is to be paid along with interest @ 9% per annum. In support
of his arguments, he has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121,
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others
reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported as (2018)
18 SCC 130.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, has
submitted that the interest claimed by the appellants is highly excessive and
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100588
FAO-2936-2009 (O&M) [3]
they should only be granted interest @ 6% per annum.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants, in view of the abovesaid
facts, has given a revised chart which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
ASSESSED BY THE CLAIMED NOW IN
MACT APPEAL
INCOME Rs.10,000/- monthly Rs.10,000/- monthly
Deduction Rs.2000/- towards fuel 1/3rd
and maintenance +
1/3rd towards personal
expenses
Income after deduction Rs.5333/- per month Rs.6667/- per month
Future prospects NIL 40% = Rs.2666/-
Total Income Rs.6667/- + Rs.2666/- =
Rs.9333/- per month
Multiplier Rs.9333/- x 12 x 17 =
Rs.19,03,932/-
Loss of estate NIL Rs.15,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.7086/- Rs.15,000/-
Consortium NIL Rs.40,000/- x 3 =
Rs.1,20,000/-
Total Rs.10,95,000/- Rs.20,53,932/-
Interest 6% 7.5%
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book.
7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 42 of Sarla Verma's case
(Supra) had observed as under:-
"We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should
be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by
applying Susamma Thomas, 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), reduced by one unit for
every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31
to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years,
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100588
FAO-2936-2009 (O&M) [4]
and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for
every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to
60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
8. A perusal of the above would show that for the age of 28 years,
multiplier of 17 is to be applied.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (Supra),
has held as under:-
"59.In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record
our conclusions:-
59.1 The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been
well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was
taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla
Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a
coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary
view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
59.2 As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma
Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the
decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards 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, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be
read as actual salary less tax.
59.4 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
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100588
FAO-2936-2009 (O&M) [5]
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 by paragraphs 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 Verma read with paragraph 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.
60. The reference is answered accordingly. Matters be placed
before the appropriate Bench."
10. A perusal of the above judgment would show that it was
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that addition of some percentage of
the actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects was
also required to be taken into consideration and the said percentage was
specifically defined with respect to persons who were having a permanent
job or/were self-employed or on a fixed salary. The chart as reproduced in
para 42 of the judgment of Sarla Verma's case (Supra) was approved and a
total amount of Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads namely loss of estate,
loss of consortium or funeral expenses was also mentioned which required
to be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100588
FAO-2936-2009 (O&M) [6]
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance
Company Limited's case (Supra) had further observed that in death case,
under the head of loss of consortium, the parents of the deceased are entitled
to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium,
children are entitled to parental consortium. To the widow, spousal
consortium is to be given. Relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi 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,co-operation, 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
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100588
FAO-2936-2009 (O&M) [7]
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.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed
at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases 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
lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A
few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count 5.
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 Sethi (supra). 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 for loss of Filial Consortium."
12. In the abovesaid judgment, an amount of Rs.40,000/- each was
awarded to the father and sister of the deceased and thus, the amount of
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100588
FAO-2936-2009 (O&M) [8]
consortium awarded was made dependent upon the number of
claimants/legal representatives.
13. The revised chart submitted by the present appellants is in
accordance with law and the amounts stated on account of future prospects,
loss of estate, funeral expenses as well as loss of consortium are in
accordance with the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
abovesaid cases. An amount of Rs.2000/- is stated to have been deducted by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on account of fuel and maintenance
charges, which is in addition to 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses,
which is not permissible. Only 1/3rd expenses towards personal expenses
are to be deducted and thus, the said aspect has been correctly mentioned in
the revised chart. With respect to rate of interest, this Court is consistently
awarding the rate of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which rate of
interest is also reasonable in the present case.
14. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the
present appeal is partly allowed and the award dated 25.02.2009 is modified
and respondent No.3 is directed to pay the additional amount of
compensation to the tune of Rs.9,58,932/- along with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation
within a period of six weeks from today.
15. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.
06.08.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
8 of 8
