Punjab-Haryana High Court
Brahma Devi And Ors vs Sunil And Ors on 7 November, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:015737
FAO-2264-2007 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-2264-2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision: November 07, 2024
Brahma Devi and others ......Appellants
Vs.
Sunil and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Simranpreet Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for
Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate,
for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
27.07.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for
short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the
claimants/appellants.
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.07.2003, deceased-Sumer
Singh was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.RJ-18P-0199 from Nangal
Chaudhary to Narnaul. Many passengers were also travelling in the said bus.
When the said bus, which was being driven by respondent No.1 (Driver) in a rash
and negligent manner, reached near a railway crossing No.46, Narnaul-Amarpur
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:015737
FAO-2264-2007 (O&M) -2-
Jorasi, the driver of the said bus lost his control over the bus, which struck against
the railway crossing, due to which, the bus turned turtle and fell in a ditch. Due to
which, besides all the passengers sustained multiple injuries, Sumer Singh died in
the accident. In this regard, an F.I.R under Sections 279/338 of IPC was registered
at Police Station GRP, Rewari by one Prithvi Singh against respondent No.1.
3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and contested
the claim petition and denied the factum of the accident.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following
issues:-
1) Whether the death of Sumer Singh was caused in a motor
vehicular accident which took place on 15.07.2003 at about
9:00 AM in the area of village Amarpur-Jorasi due to rash or
negligent driving of vehicle No.RJ-18P/0199 by respondent
No.1 (Sunil) owned by respondent No.2 (Hukam Chand) and
insured with respondent No.3 (United India Ins. Co.)? OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are the LRs/dependents of
deceased Sumer Singh? OPP.
3) `To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioners
are entitled to and from whom? OPP.
4) Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence on the date of alleged accident? OPR.
5) Relief.
5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on
record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.6,44,400/-
alongwith interest @ 7½% per annum. Hence the claimants/appellants filed the
present appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
6. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the
compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side, as Sumer
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:015737
FAO-2264-2007 (O&M) -3-
Singh (since deceased) was about 45 years of age and was posted as Assistant in
the office of District Industries Centre, Narnaul and was drawing a salary of
Rs.9,000/- per month. He further contends that deduction of 1/3rd income as
personal expenditure on the part of deceased is on the higher side. Learned
Tribunal has also erred in law in applying the multiplier of 10. The learned
Tribunal failed to include future prospects in its calculation. He further contends
that the amount awarded for loss of consortium, for funeral expenses and medical
bills is on the lower side. He further submits that nothing has been awarded
towards loss of estate. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and
compensation should be enhanced as per latest law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company,
however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount
of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. He
prays for dismissal of the present appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case.
9. A perusal of the record indicates that the Tribunal has given lumpsum
amount of Rs.6,44,400/- to the appellant, which is on the lower side and deserves
to be enhanced. However, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of
deceased i.e Rs.8,055/- on the basis of the salary certificate, which is proved on
record as Ex.PW6/A, but no amount was awarded towards loss of consortium,
funeral expenses, future prospect and loss of estate. Therefore, the award requires
indulgence of this Court.
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:015737
FAO-2264-2007 (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], laid
down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same
are as under:-
"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
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 exceeds six.
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the
parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard 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 the 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
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 the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50%
would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:015737
FAO-2264-2007 (O&M) -5-
and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family
of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased,
as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of
younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family
will be taken as two-third.
* * * * * *
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 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, 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.
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
Sections 166, 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 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 or fixed salary.
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:015737
FAO-2264-2007 (O&M) -6-
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find
it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh². It has
granted Rs.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 relating 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
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 variation 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, namely, 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 or quantum-centric. We 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 in consistency in respect of those heads.
* * * * *
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:015737
FAO-2264-2007 (O&M) -7-
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 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 paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma⁴ 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 Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &
Others [2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:015737
FAO-2264-2007 (O&M) -8-
Pranay Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant
paras of the same are reproduced as 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 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. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a
child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:015737
FAO-2264-2007 (O&M) -9-
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.
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 Sethi². 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.
CONCLUSION
13. 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
27.07.2005 is modified accordingly. The appellants-claimants are entitled to
enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:015737
FAO-2264-2007 (O&M) -10-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.8,055/-
2 Future prospects @ 15% Rs.1,208/- (15% of 8,055)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.2,315/- (8,055+1,208 X 1/4)
expenditure 1/4th
4. Total Income Rs.6,948/- (9,263-2,315)
5 Annual Dependency Rs.9,17,136/- (6,948 X 12 X 11)
6 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
7 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-
8 Loss of Consortium Rs.2,88,000/-
Parental : Rs. 48,000/-x4
Spousal : Rs. 48,000/-x1
Filail : Rs. 48,000/-x1
Total Compensation Rs.12,41,136/-
Amount Awarded by the Rs.6,44,400/-
Tribunal
Enhanced amount Rs.5,96,736/- (rounded off to
Rs.5,96,700/-)
14. 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 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation
(2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants-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.
15. The Insurance Company-respondent No. 3 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 with interest in the accounts of the
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:015737
FAO-2264-2007 (O&M) -11-
claimants/appellants, as per the ratio settled by the Tribunal in its award dated
27.07.2005. The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account
details to the Tribunal.
16. In view of the above, respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed
to pay the compensation in the first instance and liberty is granted to respondent
No.3 to recover the same from respondents No.1 and 2.
17. Disposed off accordingly.
18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
November 07, 2024
adhikari
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
11 of 11
