Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushila And Another vs Jagdish And Others on 17 September, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122692
FAO-488-2019(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
FAO-488-2019(O&M)
Date of decision : 17.09.2024
Sushila and another
... Appellants
Versus
Jagdish and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Parmod Parmar, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.Abhinav Singla, Advocate for
Mr.Amit Goyal, Advocate
for respondent no.3.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
CM-1693-CII-2019
1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 19 days in filing
the appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by
an affidavit, the application is allowed and delay of 19 days in filing the
appeal is condoned.
FAO-488-2019
1. The mother and younger brother of the deceased Tejdeep have
filed the present appeal for modification of the award dated 10.08.2018 and
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122692
for enhancement of the compensation awarded.
2. The only question which arises for consideration in the present
petition is as to what compensation are the present appellants entitled to, as
there is no dispute about the fact that deceased Tejdeep died in an accident
which took place on 15.09.2017, and which involved the car which was
driven by Jagdish and was owned by Naresh and was insured by respondent
no.3-insurance company.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
income of the deceased in the present case has been assessed as Rs.8000/-
by the Tribunal whereas the minimum wages, at the relevant time were
Rs.8280/-. It is further submitted that the amount on account of loss of
estate / love and affection as well as on account of funeral expenses which
was taken into consideration was Rs.15,000/- each whereas the same was
required to be assessed as Rs.18,000/- each. It is argued that no amount has
been awarded on account of loss of consortium and thus, an amount of
Rs.96,000/- (48,000 x 2 ) is required to be added on the said count. It is
stated that thus, the present appellants are entitled to an enhanced amount of
Rs.1,44,336/- and it is prayed that the said amount be released along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition
till the date of payment. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the
appellants has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case 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
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122692
(2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported as (2018) 18 SCC 130.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.3-
insurance company has submitted that the interest at the rate of 9% is highly
excessive and the interest at the rate of 6% is at best to be granted to the
appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted a revised
chart. The said chart is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Appellants/Claimants: 2 claimants : mother and younger brother
Date of accident : 15.09.2017
Nature of case : Death cases
Age and status of the deceased : 22 years old unmarried named Tejdeep
Insurance company : Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company
DETAILS OF RELIEF GRANTED / CLAIMED IN APPEAL
Particulars Granted by Tribunal Claimed in appeal
Income assessed 8000/- 8280/- as per minimum
wages notification attached
Future prospects 40% 40.00% 40% (8280+3312)= 11592/-
Deduction ½ ½ 11592-5796=5796
Loss of estate/love and 15000/- 18000/-
affection
Funeral expenses 15000/- 18000/-
Loss of consortium Not granted 48000x2=96,000/-
Total compensation 12,39,600/- 5796x12x18=12,51,936+36
000+96000=13,83,936/-
Enhanced amount 13,83,936-12,39,600=
1,44,336/-
Rate of interest 7% per annum 9% per annum from the
date of filing the petition i.e.
06.12.2017
CHANDIGARH
DATED: 16.09.2024"
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122692
perused the paper book and has also considered the said revised chart and
the same has been found to be in accordance with law.
7. The Hon'ble 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."
A perusal of the above would show that for the age of 22 years,
multiplier of 18 is to be applied.
8. 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
Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the
decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122692
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
before the appropriate Bench."
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122692
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
sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122692
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 children who
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122692
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."
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.
10. The chart prepared by learned counsel for the appellants
reproduced hereinabove is in accordance with law and deserves to be
accepted except on the aspect of interest. The income of the deceased has
been rightly assessed in the chart and even the loss of estate and funeral
expenses to the extent of Rs.18,000/- on each count are required to be
awarded instead of the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on
both the said counts. An amount of Rs.96,000/- (48,000 x 2) is also required
to be given on the count of loss of consortium. Thus, the present appellants
are entitled to an amount of Rs.1,44,336/- as additional compensation. With
respect to the rate of interest, this Court is consistently awarding the rate of
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which rate of interest is also
reasonable in the present case.
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122692
11. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the
present appeal is partly allowed and award dated 10.08.2018 is modified
and respondent no.3 is directed to pay an additional amount of
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,44,336/- to the appellants along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till its realisation within a period of six weeks from today.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of in view of the
abovesaid order.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
September 17, 2024.
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
9 of 9
