Punjab-Haryana High Court

Urmila And Ors vs Jaswant Singh And Anr on 19 September, 2024

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

           FAO- 3379-2007
                     2007 (O&M)                                                   -1-



           222
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 FAO-3379-2007
                                                           2007 (O&M)
                                                 Date of Decision: September 19, 2024


           Urmila and Others                                               ......Appellant(s)

                                                        Vs.

           Jaswant Singh and another                                       ......Respondent(s)


           CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

           Present:            Mr. Akash Vashisth, Advocate for the appellants.

                    Mr. Suvir Dewan,, Advocate for the respondent - Insurance Co.
                                      ----
           SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

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

15.05.2007 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 198 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for

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

claimants/appellants, who are the family members of Raj Bahadur (deceased)

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 07.07.2005 deceased--Raj

Bahadur was going on his scooter bearing registration No.HR No.HR-36A-1415 for taking

meal at a hotel near Exide Exide Factory. When he reached near YKK factory situated on

National Highway No.8, a Tata Spacio bearing registration No.RJ No.RJ-14-T-6440 came

from the side of Bawal, which is the wrong side being dri driven ven in rash and negligent

manner, struck against the scooter of Raj Bahadur. Raj Bahadur fell down on the

road and suffered injuries on vital parts of his body. He was brought to Birendra

FAO- 3379-2007 2007 (O&M) -2-

Hospital,, Rewari. He had also remained under treatment at Jaipur Golden olden

Hospital, Delhi where he ultimately died on 08.08.2005 08.08.2005. A case was got registered

with the police Station, Kasola by way of FIR No.97, dated 26.07.2005 for an

offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 IPC. A sum of rupees three lacs

was spent on his treatment. It was further stated that at the time of incident Raj

Bahadur was 35 years of age and was working as Manager/Site Incharge with M/s

Jeet Builders.. He was earning Rs.7,000/-

Rs.7,000/ to Rs.8,000/ Rs.8,000/- per month.

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

the factum of compensation.

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

issues:-

1. Whether the accident in question resulting into death of Raj Bahadur son of Shri ri Dhan Singh took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Tata Spacio No.RJ No.RJ-14T-6440 6440 by its driver/respondent No.1? OPP.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of death of Raj Bahadur and if so to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident in question, as alleged? OPR 3 & 4.

4. Whether the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation on the grounds as alleged in the written writ statement? OPR- 3 & 4.

5. Relief.

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

record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.7,05,500/-

                                                                            Rs.7,05,500/




            FAO- 3379-2007
                     2007 (O&M)                                                   -3-



           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 appellants contends that the

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

that no amount was granted for future prospects and compensation granted under

conventional Heads i.e. funeral funeral expenses, loss of estate and consortium is on the

lower side.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent respondent-Insurance Insurance Company,

however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount

of compensation as assessed by the learned 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 award indicates that the Tribunal has rightly assessed

the income of deceased as Rs.4000/-

Rs.4000/ per month. Further, no amount was granted

for future prospects as per the settled law and compensation awarded for

conventional heads is also on lower side. Therefore, the award requires

interference by this Court.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

10. 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- 3379-2007 2007 (O&M) -4-

"30

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 one third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth one fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members 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 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.

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

FAO- 3379-2007 2007 (O&M) -5-

expenses may be restricted to one-third one third and co contribution ntribution to the family will be taken as two-third.

                                                two

                               *            *            *            *            *               *

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 sta starts rts 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 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 M for 46 6 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 M 11 for 51 to 55 years, M 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.

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company

Ltd. Vs. Pranayy 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; (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 ppersons ersons 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 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

FAO- 3379-2007 2007 (O&M) -6-

care and guidance for minor children. The head relat relating ing 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 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 variat variation ion 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, name namely, ly, 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. Wee 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 ing 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

FAO- 3379-2007 2007 (O&M) -7-

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 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 yearss 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 rsonal 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 respectiv respectively.

ely. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."

12. 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

Pranay Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant

paras of the same are reproduced as under:

under:-

FAO- 3379-2007 2007 (O&M) -8-

"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, ny, 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 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 acciden accidental tal 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, affe affection, ction, 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 child's consortium far ar 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

FAO- 3379-2007 2007 (O&M) -9-

compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a ccompensation ompensation 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 paren parentt 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 th thee 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 ill 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 for loss of filial consortium.

CONCLUSION

13. 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

15.05.2007 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. 4000/-
                          2    Future prospects @ 40%             Rs.1600/- (40% of 4000)




            FAO- 3379-2007
                     2007 (O&M)                                                     -10-



                          3     Deduction        towards    personal Rs.1400/-
                                expenditure                          [1/4 of (4000+1600)]

                         4.     Total Income                        Rs.4200/- (5600-1400)



                          5     Annual Dependency                   Rs.8,06,400/-(4200 x 12 x 16))
                          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/-
                                               48,000/ x3
                                Spousal : Rs. 48,000/-x1
                                               48,000/
                                Filial : Rs. 48,000/-x2
                                               48,000/
                         9.     Medical Expenses                    Rs.1,20,000/-
                                Total Compensation                  Rs. 12,50,400/-
                                Amount Awarded by the               Rs. 7,05,500/-
                                Tribunal
                                Enhanced amount                     Rs.5,44,900/-

14. 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 of its realization.

15. Respondent No.3 - Oriental Insurance Company 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

enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the accounts of all the

claimants/appellants as per ratio settled in the award dated 15.05.2007.. The

FAO- 3379-2007 2007 (O&M) -11-