Punjab-Haryana High Court

Darshan Kaur And Ors vs Hasan Din And Ors on 21 October, 2024

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

FAO-1730-2006
2006 (O&M)
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO
FAO-1730-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 21.10.2024

MRS. DARSHAN KAUR AND OTHERS ....APPELLANTS

VERSUS

HASAN DIN @ HASAMDIN AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr.K.K. Garg, Advocate
Mr
for the appellant(s).
appellant

Mr. R.P. Daria, Advocate for Insurance Company.

Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate with
Mr. Vipul,
Vipul Advocate for respondent No
Nos.4 and 5.
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA,
SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellants for

enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 08.08.2005 under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
198 , whereby
whereby, the claimants/appellant
/appellants

were awarded a compensation of Rs.3,14,200
Rs.3,14,200/- along with interest @ 9%
% per

annum.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on on 30.7.01 Bhagwan Singh

alongwith his brother Pal Singh boarded a bus No. HP HP-25-0792 0792 for going to Nogali

(near Dharampur) from Chandigarh. He was sitting near window of the driver side.

When the bus reached near Chow Blind curve Bathol Dharampur, then a truck truc

bearing No.HP--14-3373 3373 came from the side of Dharampur and in the process of

crossing each other, other the driver of both the vehicles failed to maintain a distance in

AMIT KAUNDAL between and collided with each other. As a result of the impact impact, Bhagwan Singh

FAO-1730-2006 2006 (O&M)

suffered head injuries as the window panes of the bus were broken and hit against

his head. Bhagwan Singh died on the spot due to grievous injuries suffered by him.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied

the factum of compensation.

4. From the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following

issues:-

"1.

1. Whether Bhagwan Singh died in a road accident which took

place on 30.7.01 at about 6.45 a.m. on national highway no.2

near Chow Blind Curve Bathol, Dharampur on account of rash

& negligent driving of bus N No. HP-25-0792 0792 and truck No. HP-

HP

14-3373 3373 by their respective drivers i.e. respondents no.1 & 5,

owned by respondents no.4 and 2 respectively? OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved whether claimants are entitled to any

amount as compensation, pensation, if so, to what amount and from

whom? OPP

3. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid driving

licence at the time of accident if so, its effect? OPR OPR-3

4. Relief."

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

record,, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.

Rs.3,14,200/ 3,14,200/-

alongwith interest @ 9% % per annum. Hence the claimants/appellants filed the

present appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS

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

amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He further contends

FAO-1730-2006 2006 (O&M)

that the learned Tribunal erroneously applied multiplier of 16 instead of 18 and no

amount has been granted for future prospects and for loss of estate.. He further

contends that the compensation for loss of consortium and funeral expenses was on

lower side.

7. Per contra, learned for the respondent respondents argues that the learned

Tribunal vide ide award dated 08.08.2005 has rightly assessed the amount of

compensation.

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

record of this case.

case

9. A perusal of the award indicates that the Tribunal has assessed the

income of the deceased at Rs.2400/-

Rs. per month as per minimum wages prescribed

by Union Territory of Chandigarh.

Chandigarh. Further the Tribunal applied the multiplier of

16,, however, according to the law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court, the appropriate

multiplier should be 18. Furthermore, rthermore, no amount was calculated for future

prospects and loss of estate and the sum awarded for loss of consortium and

funeral expenses are also on the lower side. Therefore, the award requires

indulgence of this Court.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

11. 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 he 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

FAO-1730-2006 2006 (O&M)

standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent

decisions of this Court, we are of 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 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 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 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 eviden evidence ce 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 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

FAO-1730-2006 2006 (O&M)

of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, deceas

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

herefore 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 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.

12. 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;

FAO-1730-2006 2006 (O&M)

(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 self 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 expresse expressed d in Rajesh². It has

granted Rs.25,000 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 ldren 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 det determination ermination 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 cou court rt 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 consisten

as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals

and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it

FAO-1730-2006 2006 (O&M)

seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable

figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of

consortium rtium 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 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 sself-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

FAO-1730-2006 2006 (O&M)

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 Verma Verma⁴⁴ 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 hould be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three

years."

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General

Insurance Company Limited Limited 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

FAO-1730-2006 2006 (O&M)

term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental

consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium

would include the he company, care, help, comfort, guidance, guidan

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-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".

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 ca causes uses 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 over have recognised that the value of a

FAO-1730-2006 2006 (O&M)

-10

- -

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 comp companionship anionship 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 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 h for loss

of filial consortium.

FAO-1730-2006 2006 (O&M)

-11

- -

CONCLUSION

14. 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

08.08.2005 is modified accordingly. The appellants appellants-claimants claimants are entitled to

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

                               Sr.                     Heads                     Compensation Awarded
                               No.
                                 1    Monthly Income                        Rs.2400/-
                                 2    Future prospects @ 40%                Rs.960/- (40% of 2400)
                                 3    Deduction        towards    personal Rs.840/- [1/4 of (2400+960
                                                                                             2400+960)]
                                      expenditure

                                4.    Total Income                          Rs.2520/- (3360-840)



                                 5    Annual Dependency                     Rs.5,44,320/-
                                                                            (Rs.2560/- x 12 x 18)
                                 6    Loss of Estate                        Rs.18,000/-
                                 7    Funeral Expenses                      Rs.18,000/-
                                 8    Loss of Consortium                    Rs.1,92,000/-
                                      Parental : Rs.48,000/-
                                                 Rs.48       x2
                                      Spousal : Rs.48,000/-x1
                                                 Rs.4
                                      Filal:     Rs.48,000/-x1
                                      Total Compensation                    Rs.7,72,320/-
                                      Amount Awarded by the Tribunal        Rs.3,14,200/-
                                      Enhanced amount                       Rs.4,58,120/-

15. 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 claimants are granted the interest @

9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till

the date ate of its realization.

realization

FAO-1730-2006 2006 (O&M)

-12

- -

16. Since in the connected appeal filed by the Insurance Company award

has been modified to the extent that respondent respondent-HRTC HRTC is liable to pay the amount

of compensation. Therefore, respondent No.4--HRTC is directed to deposit the

enhanced anced 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 all the

claimants/appellants as per ratio settled in the award dated 08.08.2005.. The claimants/appellants

claimants/appellants are directed to furnish the bank account details to the

Tribunal.

17. Disposed of accordingly.

18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.





              October 21,, 2024                             ((SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
              A.Kaundal                                           JUDGE

Whether speaking/non-speaking speaking/non speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No