Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Kaur And Ors vs Inderpal Singh And Ors on 9 August, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-5418-2006
2006 (O&M) -1-
209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO No. 5418 of 2006 and
XOBJ - 20 - CII - 2008
Date of decision : August 09, 2024
Smt. Surjit Kaur and others
...... Appellants
Versus
Inderpal Singh and others
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present : Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for
for the appellants.
Mr
Mr.Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for the Insurance Company.
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA,
SHARMA J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellantss for
enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 01.09.2006 under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, whereby the claimant
claimants/appellant
/appellants
were awarded a compensation of Rs.96,000/-
Rs. along with interest @ 6% per annum.
annum
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
2. On 11.07.2003, Sain Dass was going to his shop on a bicycle. He was
at a distance of 100 meters from village Rarra
Ra ra Turn
Turn, then one motorcycle bearing
registration No.PB-54-9009
No.PB came from behind which was being driven rashly and
negligently by respondent No.1, without
ithout blowing horn and struck against Sain
Dass, who fell down from his bicycle on the pucca road and had received grievous
head injury. Sain Dass was admitted in Civil Hospital
Hospital, Tanda from where he was
referred to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. At 11.30 PM Sain Dass succumbed to his
FAO-5418-2006
2006 (O&M) -2-
injuries while lying admitted in Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. The deceased
eceased was
stated to be 55 years old at time of his death and was earning Rs.6,000/
Rs.6,000/- per month
as a shopkeeper.
3. On notice of the claim petition, respondents
spondents appeared and denied the
factum of compensation.
4. From the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following
issues:-
1. Whether on 11.07.2003 at about 3:30 PM in the area of
Village Miani, there was an accident due to rash and negligent
driving of motorcycle No.PB
No.PB-54-9009
9009 by respondent No.1 and
in that accident Sain Dass had died? OPP
2. Whether the claimants are the legal representatives and
were dependent upon the deceased? OPP
3. Whether the claimants are entitled to the comp
compensation
ensation
and, if so, how much and from whom? OPP
4. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR.
5. Whether the driver of the motorcycle was not holding a
valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged
accident? OPR
6. Relief.
5. After taking
taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on
record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.96,000
96,000/-
alongwith
with interest @ 6% per annum.. Hence the claimants/appellants filed the
present appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
FAO-5418-2006
2006 (O&M) -3-
SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS
6. Learned counsel for the appellant
appellants contend that the amount of
compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He further
contends that the income of the deceased has been taken as Rs.2400/
Rs.2400/- per month
which is lower than that of daily wage labourer.
labourer. He, therefore
therefore, prays that it should
be minimum Rs.3,000/-
Rs.3,000/ per month. He further contends that the multiplier has
been taken to be 5 whereas as per the latest law laid down in the judgment passed
in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6
Supreme Court
rt Cases 121],
121] it has to be 11. He further contends that no amount
was awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of consortium.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insuran
Insurance
ce Company vehemently
argued on the lines of the award and contends that the compensation has been
rightly granted to be Rs.96,000/-
Rs.96,000/ since the petition was filed under Section 163-A
of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and the maximum amount to be gran
granted
ted as per the
Schedule is Rs.95,000/-
Rs.95 under the conventional head.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case.
case
9. A perusal of the award dated 01.09.2006 indicates that the Tribunal
has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.2400/ ter deducting 1/3rd
Rs.2400/- per month. After
for personal expenses,
expenses the annual dependency was determined to be Rs.19,200/-.
Rs.19,200/
Further the age of deceased was taken as 55 years and the Tribunal applied
multiplier of 5,, thereby assessed total compensation payable to the claimants to be
Rs.96,000/-.
FAO-5418-2006
2006 (O&M) -4-
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121]
121],, laid
down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same
are as under:-
"30
30.. 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
standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent
subsequen
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
one third (1/3rd) where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3, one
one-fourth (1/4th) where
ere the
number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one
one-fifth
fifth (1/5th)
where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
31.. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the
parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In rregard
egard to
bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living
expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend
more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his
getting married in a short time, in which event tthe
he contribution to the
parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject
to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income
and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will
be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the
FAO-5418-2006
2006 (O&M) -5-
contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants,
because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or
be dependent on the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings,
only d the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50%
would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor
and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family
of the bachelor is large and dependent
dependent on the income of the deceased,
as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of
younger non-earning
non earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one-third
one third and contribution to the family
will be taken as two-third.
t
* * * * * *
42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as
mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying
Susamma Thomas³, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with
an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 an
and
d 21 to
25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M
M-17
17 for 26
to 30 years, M-16
M 16 for 31 to 35 years, M
M-15
15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14
M
for 41 to 45 years, and M-13
M 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two
units for every five years, that is, M
M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9
9 for 56
to 60 years, M-7
M 7 for 61 to 65 years and M
M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the law under
FAO-5418-2006
2006 (O&M) -6-
Sections 166,
66, 163-A
163 A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following
aspects:-
(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine
multiplicand;
(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased;
(C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multi
multiplier;
(D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation;
(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different
ages: with permanent job; self-employed
self employed or fixed salary.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:
under:-
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find
it difficult to agree with the view expresse
expressed
d in Rajesh². It has
granted Rs.25,000
25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000
towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of
care and guidance for minor children. The head relat
relating
ing to loss
of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers
to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The
conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be
determined on percentage basis because that would not be an
acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said
heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a
reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact
that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in
many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain
FAO-5418-2006
2006 (O&M) -7-
oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this
aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in
determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied,
there will be immense variat
variation
ion lacking any kind of consistency
as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals
and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it
seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable
figures on conventional heads, name
namely,
ly, loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000,
Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of
revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the
revisit should not be fact-centric
centric or quantum
quantum-centric. Wee think
that it would be condign that the amount that we have
quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every
three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10%
in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because
that will bring
ing in consistency in respect of those heads.
* * * * *
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
FAO-5418-2006
2006 (O&M) -8-
addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as
actual salary less tax.
59.4.. In case the deceased was self
self-employed
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 yearss 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.
59.5.. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for
personal
rsonal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall
be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma
Verma⁴⁴ which we have
reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 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."
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited
Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &
FAO-5418-2006
2006 (O&M) -9-
Others [2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and
Pranayy Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant
paras of the same are reproduced as under:
under:-
"21.. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi² 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
he company, care, help, comfort, guidance,
solace and affection of the deceased,
eceased, which is a loss to his
family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual
xual
relations with the deceased spouse
spouse.
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband
husband-wife
wife which allows
compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company,
society, cooperation, affection,
ion, 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
FAO-5418-2006
2006 (O&M) -10-
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
over have recognised 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 iiss awarded to children who
lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A
few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count.
However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on
which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial
TRIPTI SAINI consortium.
FAO-5418-2006
2006 (O&M) -11-
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 Sethi². In the
present case, we deem it appropriate to award the fa
father
ther and
the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each
h for loss
of filial consortium.
13. Hon'ble Apex Court in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali vs Shyam
Kishore Murmu,
Murmu [2022 (1) SCC 317] held as under ::-
"12
12. In the judgment in the case of Puttamma & Ors.1, this Court
has observed that the Central Government was bestowed with the
duties to amend Schedule-II
Schedule II in view of Section 163-A(3) of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, but it failed to do so. IIn
n view of the same, specific
directions were issued to the Central Government to make
appropriate amendments to Schedule
Schedule-II
II keeping in mind the present
cost of living. In the said judgment
judgment, till such amendments
ndments are made,
directions were issued for award of compensation by fixing a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for the
Rs.1,00,000/-
non earning children up to the age of 5 (five) years old and a sum of
non-earning
Rs.1,50,000/ (Rupees one lakh fif
Rs.1,50,000/- fifty
ty thousand only) for the non-
non
earning persons of more than 5 (five) years old.
13.. In the case of R.K. Malik & Anr.2 also, this Court has observed
that the notional income fixed under Section 163-A of thee Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 as Rs.15,000/-
Rs.15,000/ per annum should be enhanced and
increased as the same continued to exist without any amendment since
14.11.1994. In the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr.3 where the deceased
FAO-5418-2006
2006 (O&M) -12-
was a ten years old child, this Court has fix
fixed
ed his notional income at
Rs.30,000/ per annum.
Rs.30,000/-
14.. In this case, it is to be noted that the accident was on
06.09.2004. In spite of repeated directions, Schedule
Schedule-II
II is not yet
amended. Therefore, fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/
Rs.15,000/- per annum
for non-
non earning members is not just and reasonable.
15.. In view of the judgments in the cases in Puttamma & Ors.1,
R.K. Malik & Anr.2 and Kishan Gopal & Anr.3, we are of the view
that it is a fit case to increase the notional income by taking into
account the inflation,
inflation, devaluation of the rupee and cost of living. In
view ofthe same, the judgment in the case of Rajendra Singh & Ors.4
relied on by the learned counsel for respondent No.2
No.2-Insurance
Insurance
Company would not render any assistance to the case of the insurance
company.
16.. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to take notional
income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand
only) per annum. Accordingly, when the notional income is multiplied
with applicable multiplier '15', as prescribed in Schedule-II
II for the
claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, it comes
to Rs.3,75,000/-
Rs.3,75,000/ (Rs.25,000/- x Multiplier 15) towards loss of
dependency. The appellants are also enti
entitled
tled to a sum of Rs.40,000/-
Rs.40,000/
each towards filial consortium and Rs.15,000/
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses. Thus, the appellants are entitled to the following amounts
towards compensation:
FAO-5418-2006
2006 (O&M) -13-
(a) Loss of Dependency : Rs. 3,75,000
3,75,000-00
(b) Filial Consortium : Rs. 80,0
80,000-00 (Rs.40,000/- x 2)
(c) Funeral Expenses : Rs. 15,000-00
----------------
Total : Rs. 4,70,000-00"
CONCLUSION
14. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award dated
01.09.2006 is modified accordingly. The appellants
appellants-claimants
claimants are entitled to
enhanced compensation as per the calculations
calculations made here
here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.3,000/-
2 Future prospects @ 10% Rs.300/- (10% of 3000)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.1100/- [1/3rd of
expenditure (3000+300)]
4. Total Income Rs.2200 (3300-1100)
4 Annual Dependency Rs 26,400/-
5 Multiplier 11 Rs.2,90,400/- (26,400
00 x 11)
6 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
7 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-
8 Loss of Consortium Rs.96,000/-
Parental : Rs.48,000/-
Rs.48
Spousal : Rs. 48,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.4,22,400/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.96,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs.3,26,400/-
15. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176
FAO-5418-2006
2006 (O&M) -14-
and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5
Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants-claimants
claimants are granted the interest @9%
per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the
date of its realization.
realizat
16. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months
from today. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount of
compensation along
along with interest in the accounts of all the claimants/appellants as
per ratio settled in the award dated 01.09.2006
01.09.2006.. The claimants/appellants are
directed to furnish the bank account details to the Tribunal.
17. As per award dated 01.09.2006, the learned Tribunal decided issue
no.5 in favour of the insurance company, since driver (respondent No.1) was not
holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The insurance company
was directed to deposit the compensation, but recovery rights were given to the
insurance company. In view of the same, the insurance com
company
pany is directed to
deposit the enhanced amount of compensation alongw
alongwith
ith interest with the Tribunal
and liberty is granted to recover the same.
same
18. Pending applications, if any, and cross
cross-objections also stand disposed
of.
August 09,, 2024 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
es/No
