Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mithlesh Devi And Others vs Sadhu Singh And Others on 8 November, 2024

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154765



FAO-4555-2006                                          1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                       FAO-4555-2006 (O&M)
                                       Date of Decision: November 08, 2024

MITHLESH DEVI AND ORS.                                       ......Appellant(s)

                                                 Vs.

SADHU SINGH AND ORS.                                       ......Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:     Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate
             for the appellants.

             Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate
             for the respondent-Insurance Company.

        ****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

C.M. No. 18185-CII-2024

The present application for actual date of hearing of the main appeal

is allowed and the matter is taken up today itself on board for disposal.

FAO N. 4555-2006

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

26.07.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for

short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellants

to the tune of Rs.5,86,080/- along with interest @7.5% per annum, on account of

death of Ram Naresh in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 23.02.2005.

2. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on

record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,86,080/-

alongwith interest 7.5% per annum. Hence the claimants/appellants filed the

present appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

1 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154765

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to

quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of

the facts of the case are not reproduced for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves

to be enhanced. Therefore, the present appeal be allowed and the enhanced

compensation be awarded to the appellants, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, 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. Therefore, he prays for

dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole

record of this case.

6. A perusal of the record indicates that the Tribunal has wrongly

assessed the income of the deceased- Ram Naresh at Rs. 6101/- per month and the

same needs to be taken as Rs.6243/- per month, keeping in view the fact he was

working as Peon and was getting the salary of Rs.6243/- per month, as per Ex P1.

Further the learned Tribunal has erred in law in applying the multiplier of 12

instead of 15 and also failed to include future prospects in its calculation.

Moreover, no amount was awarded towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and

loss of consortium . Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121], laid

2 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154765

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.

3 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154765

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 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.

8. 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:-

4 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154765

(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine

multiplicand;

(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased;

(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.

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

5 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154765

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.

* * * * *

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

6 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154765

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."

9. 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

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

7 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154765

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 8 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154765

jurisdictions world-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 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.

9 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154765

CONCLUSION

10. 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

26.07.2006 is modified accordingly. The appellants-claimants are entitled to

enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-

Sr. No.                  Heads                      Compensation Awarded
      1     Monthly Income                     6243/-
      2     Future prospects @40%              2497 (40% of 6343)
      3     Deduction towards personal 2185 (8740X1/4th)

      4.    Total Income                       6555(8740-2185)

      6     Annual Dependency                  Rs.11,79,900/- (6555X15X12)
      7     Loss of Estate                     18,000
      8     Funeral Expenses                   18,000
      9     Loss of Consortium                 Rs.2,40,000/-
            Parental: 48000X4
            Spousal: 48000X1
            Total Compensation                 Rs.14,55,900/-
            Amount Awarded by the              Rs.5,86,080/-
            Tribunal
            Enhanced amount                    Rs.8,69,020/-

11. 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.

12. 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

10 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154765

enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the accounts of the