Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 20610 P&H
Judgement Date : 20 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152773
1
FAO-4950-2006 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-4950-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: November 20, 2024
Ram Sakhi Devi (since deceased) through LR's ......Appellant(s)
vs.
Gurmeet Singh and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate and
Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate
for the respondent-Insurance Co.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
C.M. No. 20614-CII-2024
The present application for bringing on record the legal heirs of
deceased is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and the persons named in Para
No. 2 (i) to (iii) in the application, are impleaded as party in the present appeal,
being legal heirs of the deceased-appellant.
Accordingly, Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry is
directed to tag the same at the appropriate place.
FAO-4950-2006
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
03.06.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh
Sahib (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the
claimants to the tune of Rs.86,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, on
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152773
FAO-4950-2006 (O&M)
account of death of Parmod Rai in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on
28.02.2005.
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 is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
3. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the
compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to
be enhanced. He submits that the deceased was only 22 years old at the time of
accident and was the sole bread earner of the family. He was earning Rs.5000/- per
month by doing the labour work. The learned Tribunal failed to include future
prospects in its calculation. Further the multiplier of 10 was applied instead of 18.
He further submits that nothing has been awarded towards loss of estate and loss of
consortium and less amount was awarded towards funeral expenses. Therefore, he
prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation should be enhanced as
per latest law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-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.
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 at Rs.2500/- per month. However, under the
prevailing facts of the present case, the income of the deceased is assessed as
Rs.3000/- per month in accordance with the minimum wages prescribed for
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152773
FAO-4950-2006 (O&M)
labourer in the State of Punjab at the prevalent time. However, the amount awarded
under funeral expenses is on the lower side. Moreover, no amount was awarded
towards future prospect, 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
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
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152773
FAO-4950-2006 (O&M)
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
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
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152773
FAO-4950-2006 (O&M)
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:-
(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.
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
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152773
FAO-4950-2006 (O&M)
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.
* * * * *
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.
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152773
FAO-4950-2006 (O&M)
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."
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152773
FAO-4950-2006 (O&M)
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
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.
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152773
FAO-4950-2006 (O&M)
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
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
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152773
FAO-4950-2006 (O&M)
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
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
03.06.2006 is modified accordingly. The legal heirs of the appellant-claimant are
entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income 3000
2 Future prospects @ 40% 1200 (3000X40%)
3 Deduction towards personal 2100 (4200X1/2)
expenditure ½
4. Annual Dependency 25200 (2100X12)
6 Total Income 4,53,600 (25200X18)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-
9 Loss of consortium Rs.96,000/-
Filail: Rs. 48,000/-x2
Total Compensation Rs.5,85,600/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.86,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs.4,99,600/-
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 legal heirs of the appellant-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.
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152773
FAO-4950-2006 (O&M)
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
enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the accounts of the legal
heirs of the appellant-claimant in equal share. The legal representatives of the
claimant/appellant are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.
Further Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current schedule fees to Mr.
Gopal Mittal and Mr. Suman Jain, Advocates, within a period of ten days from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
13. Disposed of accordingly.
14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE November 20, 2024 G Arora
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes Whether reportable : Yes
11 of 11
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!