Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahabir Parshad vs Subhash And Ors on 8 November, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-493-2007
2007 (O&M) -1-
258
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO
FAO-493-2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 08.11.2024
Mahabir ....Appellant
VERSUS
Subhash and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate
for the appellants
Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate
for the respondent - Insurance Co.
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant for
enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Sirsa (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 11.08.2006 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, w
whereby, the claimant/appellant
/appellant was
awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/-
Rs. along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
2. The present appeal stems from an accident which took place in the
year 2006, with considerable time having passed while the instant appeal remains
rema
pending final adjudication. The case file has been fully burnt due to fire incident
which took place in this Court in the year 2011 resulting in the facts being rendered
illegible and unreadable.
3. Upon enquiry by this Court, the parties to the app
appeal
eal stated that they
do not possess a complete brief of the instant case and unable to assist the Court
properly.
FAO-493-2007
2007 (O&M) -2-
4. In the light of the facts and circumstances and considering full
loss/destruction of the case file as well as the absence of complete pap
papers
ers book,
this Court is left with no option but to dispense with the requirement to set forth
the facts of the case in this judgment.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
5. The learned
learned counsel for the claimant
claimant-appellant
appellant contends that the
learned
rned Tribunal has erred in granting lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/
Rs.50,000/-- on
account of death of his mother Jamuna Devi. He further contends that it was stated
in the pleadings that Jumuna Devi was 75 years of age and was doing household
work and contributing Rs.2,000/-
Rs.2,000/ per month. He further contends that no amount of
compensation was granted for future prospects, loss of estate, consortium etc. He,
therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed and the amo
amount
unt of compensation
compensatio
be enhanced, as per latest law.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company
has contended that there is no scope for enhancement in the present case.
Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case.
8. A perusal of the award indicates that deceased Jamuna Devi was old
lady of 75 years and was stated to be doing household work and her income was
asserted Rs.2000/-
Rs.2000/ per month. A perusal of the award further shows that the
Tribunal has erred in granting lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/
Rs.50,000/- to the claimant on
account of death of his mother Jamuna Devi. Keeping in view the age of Jamuna
Devi at the time of her death, it is just to assess her income as Rs.3,000/- per
month. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.
FAO-493-2007
2007 (O&M) -3-
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
9. 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 ggeneral
eneral 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
one hird (1/3rd) where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3, one
one-fourth
fourth (1/4th) where 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 bac
bachelor
helor 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,
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
inco
and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will
FAO-493-2007
2007 (O&M) -4-
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 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
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.
two
* * * * * *
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.
FAO-493-2007
2007 (O&M) -5-
10. 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
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
pe job; self-employed
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 expressed in Rajesh². It has
granted Rs.25,000 towards
rds 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 tto
o 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
FAO-493-2007
2007 (O&M) -6-
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.
pect. 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 aree 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 respec
respectively.
tively. The principle of
revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the
revisit should not be fact-centric
centric or quantum
quantum-centric.
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 ooff 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.
FAO-493-2007
2007 (O&M) -7-
In case
ase 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
self-employed
employed (or) on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income sshould
hould 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 off 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 Verma 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
es 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."
FAO-493-2007
2007 (O&M) -8-
11. 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:
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 lo
loss
ss 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
husband-wife
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".
FAO-493-2007
2007 (O&M) -9-
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an acciden
accidental
tal 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, affe
affection,
ction, 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
ar 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 ccompensation
ompensation 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 paren
parentt 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 th
thee Act. A
few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count.
FAO-493-2007
2007 (O&M) -10-
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
ill 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
12. 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
11.08.2006 is modified accordingly. The appellant
appellant-claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation as per the calculations made here-
here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.3,000/-
2 Annual Income Rs.36,000/-(3000x12)
3 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
4 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-
8 Loss of Consortium Rs.96,800/-
Parental : Rs.48,000/-
Rs.48,000/ x 2
Total Compensation Rs.1,68,000/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.50,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs.1,18,000/-
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
FAO-493-2007
2007 (O&M) -11-
and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu
Nadu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5
Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellant-claimant
claimant 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.
14. As per award dated 11.08.2006, respondent No.3 - Insurance
Company was absolved from paying compensation and respondent Nos.1 and 2
(driver and owner) were directed to pay the amou
amount
nt of compensation along with
interest (jointly and severely).
15. In view of the above, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit
the enhanced amount of compensation with the Tribunal (jointly and severely)
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amount of compensation
along with interest in the account of claimant/appellant. The claimant/appellant is
directed to furnish his bank account details to the Tribunal.
16. In view of the order passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007 dated
18.07.2024, the insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the current
scheduled fees to Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate within a period of ten days from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
17. Disposed of accordingly.
18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
November 8, 2024 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
