Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kitabo And Others vs Sombir And Ors on 24 October, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140633
CM-18188-CII-2024 in/and -1-
FAO-198-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(117)
CM-18188-CII-2024 in/and
FAO-198-2023
Date of decision:- 24.10.2024
Kitabo and others
...Appellants
Versus
Sombir and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate,
for the applicant-appellants.
Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate
for the non-applicant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
CM-18188-CII-2024
1. This is an application filed under Order 41 Rule 19 read with
Section 151 CPC for recalling the order dated 27.09.2024 whereby the
appeal has been dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly
supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The order dated 27.09.2024
is recalled and the main appeal is restored to its original number.
FAO-198-2023
1. Parents and two minor children of deceased-Lahna Singh have
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140633
CM-18188-CII-2024 in/and -2-
FAO-198-2023
filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal has awarded an amount of Rs.30,45,360/-
alongwith costs and interest. The only issue which arises for consideration
is with respect to the compensation to be awarded to the claimants as factum
regarding death of deceased in a road accident involving the vehicle being
driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by
respondent No.3, is not in issue in the present case.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has submitted that
the compensation as awarded is inadequate and has prayed that an amount
of Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.48000 x 4) is required to be granted to the present
appellants on account of filial compensation and parental compensation as
per the settled law. It is further submitted that no amount has been awarded
on account of transportation and an amount of Rs.50,000/- is required to be
added on the said aspect. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for
the appellants has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in cases titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121, National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported as
(2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported as (2018) 18 SCC 130.
It is submitted that the additional amount be released to the present
appellants by awarding interest @ 9% per annum. On behalf of the
appellants, a chart has been submitted, the relevant portion of which has
been reproduced herein below: -
"APPELLANT HEREIN: CLAIMANTS : 2 Minor Children, Father and Mother.
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140633
CM-18188-CII-2024 in/and -3-
FAO-198-2023
Date of Accident: 06.05.2021
Nature of Case : Death Case
Age of deceased: - 39 years
DETAILS OF RELIEF GRANTED/CLAIMED
Details AWARDED BY MACT CLAIMED BY
PRESENT APPEAL
Income Minimum wages : 15954/- Rightly Given
Income Taken:
Monthly : - Rs.15954/-
Future Prospects 40% (6382/-) Rightly Given
15,954 + 6382 = 22,336/-
22,336 x 12 = 2,68,032
Deduction 1/4th Rightly Given
2,68,032 - 67,008 = 2,01,024/-
Multiplier 15 Rightly Given
2,01,024 x 15 = 30,15,360/-
Loss of estate 15,000/- Rightly Given
Funeral Expenses 15,000/- Rightly Given
30,15,360 + 30,000 = 30,45,360
Compensation for loss Nothing Given Claimant's are entitled :
of spousal consortium Rs.48,000 x 4 = 1,92,000/-
parental consortium
and filial consortium
Transportation Nothing Rs.50,000/-
Total Compensation 30,45,360/- Total Enhancement
Claimed :
1,92,000 + 50,000 =
2,42,000/-
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company, on the other hand, has submitted that as far as the transportation
charges are concerned, the amount of `50,000/-, as mentioned in the above-
said chart, is highly excessive and at best `8,000/- can be granted on the
said aspect. It is further submitted that rate of interest which is sought to be
claimed by the appellants is also highly excessive and at best the interest
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140633
CM-18188-CII-2024 in/and -4-
FAO-198-2023
that can be awarded on the additional compensation should be 6% per
annum.
4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper books.
5. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 42 of Sarla Verma's case
(Supra) had observed as under:-
"We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should
be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by
applying Susamma Thomas, 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."
6. A perusal of the above would show that for the age of 39 years,
multiplier of '15' is to be applied.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (Supra),
has held as under:-
"59.In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record
our conclusions:-
59.1 The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been
well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was
taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla
Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a
coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary
view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
59.2 As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140633
CM-18188-CII-2024 in/and -5-
FAO-198-2023
Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the
decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
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 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 paragraphs 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 Verma read with paragraph 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.
60. The reference is answered accordingly. Matters be placed
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140633
CM-18188-CII-2024 in/and -6-
FAO-198-2023
before the appropriate Bench."
8. A perusal of the above judgment would show that it was
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that addition of some percentage of
the actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects was
also required to be taken into consideration and the said percentage was
specifically defined with respect to persons who were having a permanent
job or/were self-employed or on a fixed salary. The chart as reproduced in
para 42 of the judgment of Sarla Verma's case (Supra) was approved and a
total amount of Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads namely loss of estate,
loss of consortium or funeral expenses was also mentioned which required
to be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance
Company Limited's case (Supra) had further observed that in death case,
under the head of loss of consortium, the parents of the deceased are entitled
to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium,
children are entitled to parental consortium. To the widow, spousal
consortium is to be given. Relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi 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
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140633
CM-18188-CII-2024 in/and -7-
FAO-198-2023
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,co-operation, 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.
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 recognized 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
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140633
CM-18188-CII-2024 in/and -8-
FAO-198-2023
children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents
under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded
compensation on this count 5. 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 Sethi (supra). 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."
10. In the abovesaid judgment, an amount of Rs.40,000/- each was
awarded to the father and sister of the deceased and thus, the amount of
consortium awarded was made dependent upon the number of
claimants/legal representatives.
11. In the present case, the chart submitted by the
appellants/claimants with respect to claim of Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.48000 x 4)
on account of filial consortium and parental consortium is meritorious in
view of the settled law and thus, the same deserves to be granted to the
appellants. As far as the transportation charges are concerned, there is no
specific evidence which has been referred to by the present appellants, but
still it can not be said that no amount was incurred by the present appellants
on transporation and thus, an amount of Rs.8,000/- is to be granted to the
appellants on the said aspect. Thus, on account of the same, the claimants
are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. On the aspect of
interest, it would be relevant to mention that this Court has repeatedly
deemed fit to award interest @ 7.5% per annum and is of the opinion that
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140633
CM-18188-CII-2024 in/and -9-
FAO-198-2023
even in the present case, the said rate of interest would be appropriate.
12. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the
present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award dated 04.05.2022
is modified and respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to pay an
additional amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- to all the
appellants/claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment within
a period of six weeks from today, in the same proportions as given in the
award.
October 24, 2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
naresh.k JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
9 of 9
