Punjab-Haryana High Court

Krishna Kumari And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 19 September, 2024

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126499


                                   1
FAO-4933-2006 (O&M)


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

230                             FAO-4933-2006 (O&M)
                                Date of Decision: September 19, 2024

Krishna Kumari and others                                  ......Appellants

                                        Vs.

Union of India and others                            ......Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:    Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

            Ms. Monica Chawla, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
                            ----

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

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

08.09.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

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

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

appellants/claimants, who are the family members of the deceased.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.08.2004, the deceased-

Suresh Kumar alongwith his brother Satbir Singh and son Sunil, was returning to

his village from Samalkha, where he had gone to purchase some medicines on a

motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-06-D-6412. He was driving the motor

cycle at a normal speed observing traffic rules. His brother and Sunil were pillion

riders. At about 8:00 p.m., when they reached ahead of a petrol pump on the main

G.T. Road, a military truck bearing registration No.04D156905W was lying

stationed on the wrong side of the road without parking lights on or any other

indication. The truck was thus not visible. For that reason, the motor cycle

1 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126499

FAO-4933-2006 (O&M)

rammed into the truck. The deceased fell down from the motorcycle and received

multiple grievous and fatal injuries. He was taken to community health Centre,

Samalkha, from where he was referred to Civil Hospital, Panipat, where he

succumbed to the injuries.

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

the factum of accident/compensation.

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

issues:-

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

negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. HR-06D-6412 and in

the said accident Suresh Kumar sustained injuries and died as

a result of the same? OPP.

2) If issue no.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled

to any compensation and how much and from whom? OPP.

3) Whether the petition is not maintainable in its present

form ? OPR.

4) Relief.

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

record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,97,000/-

alongwith interest of 7½ % per annum. Hence the claimants/appellants filed the

present appeal for grant of enhancement of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal to the claimants.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS

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

amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side.

2 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126499

FAO-4933-2006 (O&M)

i) He further contends that no amount was granted for future prospects,

loss of estate and loss of consortium.

ii) He further contends that amount of funeral expenses was also on

lower side and the Ld. Tribunal wrongly applied deduction of 1/3rd towards

personal expenses. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and

compensation should be enhanced as per latest law.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, 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 award indicates that the Tribunal has rightly

assessed the monthly income of deceased as Rs.3000/-. However, no amount was

granted for future prospects, loss of estate, loss of consortium and the amount of

compensation for funeral expenses was also on lower side. Therefore, it requires

interference from 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], 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

3 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126499

FAO-4933-2006 (O&M)

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 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 4 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126499

FAO-4933-2006 (O&M)

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.

11. 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 many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has

5 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126499

FAO-4933-2006 (O&M)

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 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.

6 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126499

FAO-4933-2006 (O&M)

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."

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:-

"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".

7 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126499

FAO-4933-2006 (O&M)

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 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 8 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126499

FAO-4933-2006 (O&M)

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 and the award dated

08.09.2006 is modified accordingly. The appellants-claimants are entitled to the

compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-

      Sr.                    Heads                        Compensation Awarded
      No.
        1   Monthly Income                           Rs.3000/-
        2   Future prospects @ 40%                   Rs.1200/- (40% of Rs.3000/-)
        3   Deduction     towards          personal Rs.1050/- (¼th of 3000+1200)
            expenditure 1/4th
       4.   Total Income                             Rs.3150/- (4200-1050)


        5   Annual Dependency                        Rs.5,67,000/-
                                                     ( 3150 X 12 X 15 )
        6   Loss of Estate                           Rs.18,000/-
        7   Funeral Expenses                         Rs.18,000/-
        8   Loss of Consortium                       Rs.2,40,000/-
            Parental : Rs. 48,000/- x 4
            Spousal : Rs. 48,000/- x 1
            Filial :
            Total Compensation                       Rs.8,43,000/-
            50% of total compensation                Rs.4,21,500/-
            Amount Awarded by the                    Rs.1,97,000/-
            Tribunal
            Enhanced amount                          Rs.2,24,500/-

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 appellant-claimant is granted the 9 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126499

FAO-4933-2006 (O&M)

interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim

petition till the date of its realization.

15. The total enhanced compensation comes out to be Rs.8,43,000/-.

Since the deceased himself was held liable for contributory negligence to the

extent of 50%, therefore, the claimants are entitled to only 50% amount of

enhanced compensation i.e. Rs.4,21,500/-. The appellants/claimants were already