Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Kaur & Ors vs Ram Singh & Ors on 20 November, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-46-2006
2006 (O&M) -1-
231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO
FAO-46-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 20.11.2024
Harbhajan Kaur and others ....Appellant
VERSUS
Ram Singh and Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEE
SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate of the respondent - Insurance Co.
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)
This is an old matter pertaining to the year 2006 but no one has been
putting in appearance on behalf of the Insurance Company.
2. Previously vide order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of
2007, this Court had already issued directions to the Insurance Companies that in
the event, any of their empanelled counsel fails to appear, this Cou
Court
rt would request
the counsel empanelled with the Insurance Company, who is present in the Court
to assist in the matters. Further, the concerned Insurance Companies were directed
to disburse the current scheduled fees to the counsel engaged by this Court for
f
assisting in the matters.
3. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Lalit Garg
Garg,, Advocate accepts notice
on behalf of the respondent-Insurance
respondent Insurance Company.
FAO-46-2006
2006 (O&M) -2-
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has handed over copy of the
paper-book
book alongwith relevant record to the learned counsel for the respondent -
Insurance Company.
5. In view of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of
2007, the Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to
Mr. Lalit Garg,, Advocate, the counsel engaged by this Court in the present case.
FAO-46-2006 (O&M)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant
claimants/appellants for
enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Patiala (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 02.08.2005 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby, the claimant
claimants/appellant
/appellants
were awarded a compensation of Rs.3,65,000/
Rs.3,65,000/- along with interest @ 9%
% per
annum.
2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not
being adverted to for the sake of brevity.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
3. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellant
claimant appellants contends that the amount
assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side
side.. He further contends that
learnedd Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 10 instead of 13 and amount
assessed for funeral expenses is also on the lower side. Moreover, no amount has
been awarded for the loss of estate and consortium. He, therefore, prays that the
present appeal be allowed and the amount
amount of compensation be enhanced
enhanced, as per
latest law.
FAO-46-2006
2006 (O&M) -3-
4. Per contra, learned for the respondent
respondent-Insurance
Insurance Company argues that
the learned Tribunal vide award dated 02.08.2005 has rightly assessed the amount
of compensation. Therefore, he prays for dismis
dismissal of the present appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case.
6. A perusal of the award indicates that the amount of compensation
awarded by the learned
learned Tribunal is on the lower side. Further, tthe deceased was
aged about 50 years of age at the time of accident and was having three fold
income from pension,
pension, salary and dairy work. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/
Rs.4,500/-.. However, perusal of the award
further
er shows that multiplier of 13 is to be applied instead of 10, as per settled law.
Moreover, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenditu
ure,
however, as per the settled law the deduction should be 1/4th towards personal
expenditure. Further, award reveals
reveals that no amount was granted for future
prospects, loss of estate, loss of consortium and amount awarded for funeral
expenses is also on the lower side. Therefore, the award requires indulgencee 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]
121],, laid
down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same
are as under:-
FAO-46-2006
2006 (O&M) -4-
"30
30.. Though in some cases the deducti
deduction
on 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
one third (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-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 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.
FAO-46-2006
2006 (O&M) -5-
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
old 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),
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.
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
163 and 168
68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following
aspects:-
FAO-46-2006
2006 (O&M) -6-
(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
onable 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
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
ortium 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 he
heads,
ads, 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 di
dispute
spute 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
FAO-46-2006
2006 (O&M) -7-
aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in
determination
etermination 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
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 of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased ttowards
owards 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
years,, the
FAO-46-2006
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 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 byy 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 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-46-2006
2006 (O&M) -9-
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited
L ited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &
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
"parenta
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, and aid of the other in eevery
very
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-46-2006
2006 (O&M) -10-
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the pare
parents
nts 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 lifet
lifetime.
ime.
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 recogn
recognised
ised 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.
ch
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 ccases
ases 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
TRIPTI SAINI lose theirr parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A
FAO-46-2006
2006 (O&M) -11-
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
h 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
02.08.2005 is modified accordingly. The appellants
appellants-claimants
claimants are entitled to
enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here
here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.4,500/-
2 Future prospects @ 25% Rs.1,125/- (4500 x 25%)
2 Deduction towards personal Rs.1406/- [5625 x 1/4]
expend
expenditure 1/4th
3 Total Income Rs.4219/- (5625-1406)
5 Annual Dependency Rs.6,58,164/-
(4219 x 13 x 12)
FAO-46-2006
2006 (O&M) -12-
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/-
Rs.48 x4
Spousal : Rs.48,000/-
Rs.48,000/ x 1
Filial : Rs.48,000/-
Rs.48,000/ x 1
Total Compensation Rs.9,82,164/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,65,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs.6,17,164/-
11. So far as the interest part is
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 Nadu
Nadu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5
Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants-claimants
claimants are granted the iinterest
nterest @
9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till
the date of its realization.
realization
12. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation alongwith interest with the Tribunal within a pe
period
riod of two months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is further
directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in
the accounts of the claimants/appellants as per ratio settled in th
thee award dated
02.08.2005.. The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account
details to the Tribunal.
13. Before parting with the judgment, this Court extends its appreciation
to Mr. Lalit Gaarg, Advocate
ate for his able assistance to the Court in the present
matter. Further, the Insurance company-
company respondent No.
No.3 is hereby directed to
FAO-46-2006
2006 (O&M) -13-
disburse the current scheduled fees to Mr. Lalitt Garg,, Advocate within a period of
10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
14. Disposed of accordingly.
15. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
November 20,, 2024 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
