Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ram Rati And Ors vs Rajinder Singh And Ors on 22 October, 2024

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139273


                                        1
FAO-3457-2007 (O&M)



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                FAO-3457-2007 (O&M)
                                Date of Decision: October 22, 2024

Ram Rati and ors.                                   ......Appellant(s)

                                Vs.

Rajinder Singh and others                           ......Respondent(s)


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:    Mr. Shubham Chaudhary, Advocate for
            Mr. Kulbir Narwal, Advocate
            for the applicants-appellants.

            Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate
            for respondent 4-Insurance Co.

            ****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

C.M. No. 23388-CII-2023

The application for fixing an actual date of hearing, is allowed and the

main case i.e. FAO-3457-2007 is taken on board today itself.

FAO-3457-2007

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

06.03.2007 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

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

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

claimants/appellants.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case are that in July, 2005, Surender Singh (since

deceased), was posted as Chowkidar in Haryana Roadways, Panipat Depot. On

1 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139273

FAO-3457-2007 (O&M)

30.07.2005, he was on duty from 4 P.M. to 12.00 Midnight at the gate of workshop

of Panipat Depot. Rajender Singh-respondent No. 1(driver) came in the workshop

to take fuel in the bus No. HR-67-2715. After taking the fuel, he drove the bus at a

very fast speed in a rash and negligent manner which struck against the gate of the

workshop. As a result thereof, Surinder Singh (since deceased) who was on duty at

the gate of the workshop, sustained injuries and died instantaneously.

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

the claim petition while denying the compensation.

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

issues:-

1) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and

negligent driving of Bus No. HR-67/2715 by by respondent No.

1 on July 31,2005? OPP

2) Whether Surender Singh son of Khajan Singh died due to the

injuries suffered by him in the accident. If so, to what amount

of compensation and from whom, the petitioners are entitled to?

OPP

3) Whether Rajender Singh, respondent No. 1 was not holding

an effective driving licence at the time of the accident, if so, its

effect? OPR

3) Relief.

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

record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,44,000/-

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

present appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139273

FAO-3457-2007 (O&M)

SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

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

income assessed by the learned Tribunal @ Rs.4000/- per month is on the lower

side, as gross salary of Surender Singh (since deceased) was 6238/- per month, as

per salary certificate which was duly proved on record as (Ex P1). He submits that

the learned Tribunal has erred in law in deducting the GPF, HRA and GIS etc from

the monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the dependency.

He further submits that the learned Tribunal failed to include future prospects in its

calculation. He further contends that nothing has been awarded for loss of

consortium, for funeral expenses and loss of estate. Therefore, he prays that the

present appeal be allowed and compensation should be enhanced as per latest law.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 4-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.

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

record of this case.

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

assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month by deducting

subscription of GPF, HRA and GIS. Reference at this stage can be made to a

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Vikram Kanwar and others

vs. Kishore Dan and others, 2013 (3) SCC (Cri) 583 wherein in a government

servant died due to a road accident and the learned Tribunal while assessing his

income has not included the P.F, Insurance receivable etc and Hon'ble the Supreme

court has held that such an amount will not come within the periphery in the Motor

Vehicles Act to be termed as Pecuniary Advantage liable for deduction. In view of

the above, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.6328/-.

3 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139273

FAO-3457-2007 (O&M)

10. Further no amount was awarded towards loss of consortium, loss of

estate and funeral charges. Moreover, no amount was awarded towards future

prospect. Therefore, the award requires interference by 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], 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

parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to

4 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139273

FAO-3457-2007 (O&M)

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

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.

5 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139273

FAO-3457-2007 (O&M)

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 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

reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact

that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in

6 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139273

FAO-3457-2007 (O&M)

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.

In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the

7 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139273

FAO-3457-2007 (O&M)

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."

13. 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

8 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139273

FAO-3457-2007 (O&M)

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.

9 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139273

FAO-3457-2007 (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

10 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139273

FAO-3457-2007 (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

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

06.03.2007 is modified accordingly. The appellants-claimants are entitled to

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

      Sr.                      Heads                       Compensation Awarded
      No.
        1     Monthly Income                          Rs.6238/-
        2     Future prospects @ 50%                  Rs.3119/- (50% of 6238)
        3     Deduction     towards          personal Rs.2339/- (9357 X 1/4)
              expenditure 1/4th
        4.    Total Income                            Rs.7018 (9357-2339)


        5     Annual Dependency                       Rs.13,47,756/- (7018X12X16)
        6     Loss of Estate                          Rs.18,000/-
        7     Funeral Expenses                        Rs.18,000/-
        8     Loss of Consortium                      Rs.240000/-
              Parental : Rs. 48,000/-x3
              Spousal : Rs. 48,000/-x1
              Filial : Rs. 48,000/-x1
              Total Compensation                      Rs.16,23,756/-
              Amount Awarded by the                   Rs.5,44,000/-
              Tribunal
              Enhanced amount                         Rs.10,79,756/- (rounded off to Rs.
                                                      10,80,000/-)

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

11 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139273

FAO-3457-2007 (O&M)

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.

16. The Insurance Company-respondent No. 4 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