The Branch Manager, Sbi General ... vs Songmit Lepcha And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 32 Sikkim

Sikkim High Court

The Branch Manager, Sbi General ... vs Songmit Lepcha And Ors on 3 March, 2025

Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai

Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai

                 THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
                                       (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
                                       DATED : 3rd March, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   SINGLE BENCH : THE HON‟BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     MAC App. No.02 of 2025
                     Appellant             :        The Branch Manager,
                                                    SBI General Insurance Company Limited

                                                            versus
                     Respondent            :        Songmit Lepcha and Others

        Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Appearance
                     Mr. Rahul Rathi, Advocates for the Appellant.
                     Mr. Sushant Subba, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 4.
                     Ms. Anusha Basnett, Advocate for the Respondents No.5 and 6.
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 J U D G M E N T(O R A L)

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The only grievance raised by the Appellant, in this

Appeal, which assails the Judgment of the Learned Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Namchi, Sikkim, dated 28-11-2024, in MACT Case

No.06 of 2022 (Songmit Lepcha and Others vs. The Branch Manager,

SBI General Insurance Company Limited and Others), is the alleged

erroneous compensation of ₹ 40,22,908/- (Rupees forty lakhs,

twenty two thousand, nine hundered and eight) only, granted to

the Claimants (Respondents No.1 to 4 herein). It is urged that

only ¼ (one-fourth) was deducted from the loss of earnings of the

deceased while computing the award, when such deduction ought

to have been ½ (one-half), in terms of the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and Another as the deceased was a twenty-two year

(2009) 6 SCC 121

The Branch Manager, SBI General Insurance Company Limited vs. Songmit Lepcha and Others

old bachelor at the time of the unfortunate accident. That, the

compensation is accordingly required to be re-computed and

modified, in view of the obvious error made therein. That, no

other grounds are being pressed in this Appeal.

2. Respondent No.1 is the mother of the deceased who is

a widow and Respondents No.2, 3 and 4 are his younger siblings.

Respondents No.5 and 6 are the owner and driver of the vehicle

respectively.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4

and Respondents No.5 and 6 concede to the submissions advanced

by Learned Counsel for the Appellant, however they submit that

the compensation may be computed as deemed "just" by this

Court.

4. I have heard the submissions advanced by Learned

Counsel for the parties. I have also perused the records of the

case including the impugned Judgment.

5. The facts that led to the accident, briefly narrated are

that; the deceased a resident of Pedong village, District Kalimpong,

West Bengal, was working as a "Boomer Helper" in Surya Pest

Control Services Company and posted at Tunnel 9 and 10, Sevoke-

Rangpo Railway project. On 04-02-2022, when he was driving a

Scooty and was on his way to work at the Railway project NH10,

one Tata Truck driven at high speed by Respondent No.6, hit the

scooty driver, at 11th Mile Tarkhola, resulting in his death.

6. The concept of "just compensation" has been succinctly

explained by the Supreme Court in a litany of cases which for

brevity are not being discussed here. Apart from "just

compensation" the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) has also

The Branch Manager, SBI General Insurance Company Limited vs. Songmit Lepcha and Others

discussed the percentage that ought to be deducted as personal

and living expenses of the deceased. The relevant paragraph is

extracted hereinbelow;

"32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only 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." [emphasis mine]

(i) On the anvil of this observation, it is appropriate in the

instant matter to place loss of earning at 1/3 (one-third) and not ¼

(one-fourth), considering the number of family members of the

deceased, who were dependant on his income and the fact that he

had a widowed mother.

7. While perusing the impugned Judgment it appears that

under the head "loss of consortium", the Learned MACT has

granted ₹ 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only, to the

Respondent No.1 and ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only,

each, to the Respondents No.2, 3 and 4.

(i) On this aspect relevant reference is made to the

decision in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram

alias Chuhru Ram and Others . The Supreme Court addressed the

issue of consortium and stated as follows;

"21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] 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

(2018) 18 SCC 130

The Branch Manager, SBI General Insurance Company Limited vs. Songmit Lepcha and Others

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:

[Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54].

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". [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 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. ......................................................................................................

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 [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. 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." [emphasis mine]

(ii) Based on the pronouncement of Magma (supra), "filial

consortium" is to be granted to the mother of the deceased and his

siblings @ ₹ 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only, each. This

shall be added during the computation of the award.

8. No compensation was granted to the Respondents No.1

to 4 under the head "loss of estate" by the Learned MACT. In light

of the observation of the Supreme in National Insurance Company

Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others extracted hereinbelow the

Respondents No.1 to 4 are entitled to such compensation;

"52. .................................... 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

(2017) 16 SCC 680

The Branch Manager, SBI General Insurance Company Limited vs. Songmit Lepcha and Others

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." [emphasis mine]

(i) It is also worth noticing from the above extract of the

decision that for "funeral expenses", "loss of estate" and "loss of

consortium", 10% is to be added every three years.

9. On the bedrock of the discussions that have emanated

hereinabove and while relying on the various decisions of the

Supreme Court on grant of compensation in MACT cases, I am of

the considered view that compensation which is "just

compensation" is as follows;

Annual income of the deceased (₹ 17,407/- x 12)                             ₹      2,08,884.00

Add 40% of ₹ 2,08,884/- as Future Prospects                         (+)     ₹        83,554.00
[in terms of Paragraph 59.4 of the Judgment of Pranay                       ₹      2,92,438.00
Sethi (supra)]

Less 1/3 of ₹ 2,92,438/-                                            (-)     ₹        97,479.00

[in terms of Paragraph 32 of the Judgment of Sarla Verma (supra)]

Net yearly income ₹ 1,94,959.00 Multiplier to be adopted „18‟ (₹1,94,959/- x 18) ₹ 35,09,262.00 [The age of the deceased at the time of death was '22' and the relevant multiplier in terms of Paragraph 42 as per Judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) is „18‟]

Add Funeral Expenses @ ₹ 15,000/- (+) ₹ 16,500.00 [in terms of Paragraph 52 of the Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) 10% enhanced every three years, hence 10% of ₹ 15,000 = ₹ 1,500 + ₹ 15,000 = ₹ 16,500/- as the accident occurred on 04-02-2022]

Add Loss of Estate @ ₹ 15,000/- (+) ₹ 16,500.00 [in terms of Paragraph 52 of the Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) 10% enhanced every three years, hence 10% of ₹ 15,000 = ₹ 1,500 + ₹ 15,000 = ₹ 16,500/- as the accident occurred on 04-02-2022] Add Loss of Filial Consortium (+) ₹ 1,76,000.00 [₹ 40,000/- each, payable to Respondents No.1 to 4, in terms of Paragraphs 21 and 24 of the Judgment of Magma (supra) and Paragraph 52 of the Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) with enhancement @ 10% in every three years, the figure calculated is

-- ₹ 1,60,000/- @ 10%= ₹ 16,000 + ₹ 1,60,000 = ₹ 1,76,000/- as the accident occurred on 04-02-2022]

Total = ₹ 37,18,262.00

(Rupees thirty seven lakhs, eighteen thousand, two hundred and sixty two) only.

The Branch Manager, SBI General Insurance Company Limited vs. Songmit Lepcha and Others

10. The computation of compensation made by the Learned

MACT is modified to the extent above.

11. The Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to pay

the awarded compensation to the Claimants-Respondents No.1 to

4, within one month from today, with simple interest @ 9% per

annum, failing which, it shall pay simple interest @ 12% per

annum, from the date of filing of the Claim Petition, i.e., 20-07-

2022, till final realization. Amounts, if any, already paid by the

Appellant-Insurance Company to the Claimants-Respondents No.1

to 4, for the instant Claim Petition, shall be duly deducted from the

awarded compensation.

12. The modified awarded amount of compensation, along

with interest, as specified above, shall be divided amongst the

Claimant-Respondent No.1 and Claimants-Respondents No.2, 3

and 4, in the following manner;

(i) The Claimant-Respondent No.1, mother of the deceased, is entitled to 40% of the total compensation awarded; and

(ii) The Claimants-Respondents No.2, 3 and 4, being his siblings, are entitled to 60% of the total awarded compensation which shall be divided equally amongst them, i.e., 20% each.

13. Appeal disposed of accordingly.

14. No order as to costs.

15. Copy of this Judgment be sent forthwith to the Learned

MACT for information.

( Meenakshi Madan Rai ) Judge 03-03-2025 Approved for reporting : Yes

ds/sdl