Ritta Devi and Others v. Rajinder Singh and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 219 FAO-1962-2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 19, 2024 Ritta Devi (widow) and others ......Appellants Vs. Rajinder Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:  HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company ---- S  UDEEPTI SHARMA  J. (ORAL) This is an old matter pertaining to the year 2007 but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Insurance Company.

¶2Previously vide order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007, this Court had already issued directions to the Insurance Companies that in the event, any of their empanelled counsel fails to appear, this Court would request the counsel empanelled with the Insurance Company, who is present in the Court to assist in the matters. Further, the concerned Insurance Companies were directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to the counsel engaged by this Court for assisting in the matters.

¶3On the asking of the Court, Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

¶4Learned counsel for the appellants has handed over copy of the paper-book alongwith relevant record to the learned counsel for respondent Insurance Company-Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate.

¶5In view of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007, the Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate, the counsel engaged by this Court in the present case. FAO-1962-2007 The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

21.10.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the claimants/appellants to the tune of Rs.6,24,500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on account of death of Sanjay Malik in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 08.07.2002.

¶2As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

¶3The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He further contends that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- p.m. whereas Ld. Tribunal has wrongly assessed his income as Rs.3000/-p.m.

i) That no amount was granted for future prospects.

ii) That the amount awarded for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is also on lower side. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation should be enhanced as per latest law.

¶4Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5.  I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

¶6A perusal of the award indicates that the Tribunal  has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- p.m. as the deceased was 26 years of age. A perusal fo the award further reveals that the Ld. Tribunal has wrongly applied the multipler of 18 instead of 17.

ii) Further no amount was granted for future prospects.

iii) Moreover, the amount awarded for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is also on lower side.  Therefore, it requires indulgence of this Court. SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

¶7Hon'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 Sonia Arora was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses - of 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.

¶31Where 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.

¶32Thus 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. * * * * * *

¶42We 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 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. ). =on?'le Supre e Court in the case of   National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. <(2017) 16 6CC 6?0> has clarified the @ law under Sections (.., (.0-A and (.) of the Motor 5ehicles Act, (6)), on the followin# aspects:- 8A: Deduction of personal and livin# e>penses to deter ine ultiplicandA 8B: Selection of  ultiplier dependin# on a#e of deceasedA 8C: A#e of deceased on 'asis for appl!in#  ultiplierA 8D: Reasona'le fi#ures on conventional heads, na el!, loss of estate, loss of consortiu  and funeral e>penses, with escalationA 8B: +uture  prospects  for  all   cate#ories   of  persons   and   for different a#es: with per anent <o'A self-e plo!ed or fi>ed salar!. "he relevant portion of the <ud# ent 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 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.

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."

6.  =on?'le   Supre e   Court   in   the   case   of  Ma7)a   G & +a3 I&%=+a&#  C!)2a&A 9$)$t / 4%1 Na&= Ra) a3$a% C0=0+= Ra) & Otti +% <201?(1?) 6CC 1:0>  after considerin#   6a+3a 4 +)a  (%=2+a)  and  P+a&aA 6 tti$ (6=2+a) has settled the law re#ardin# consortiu .  Relevant paras of the sa e 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".

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.

¶22Consortium 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.

¶23The 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.

¶24The 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 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. RE9IEF (%. In view of the law laid down '! the =on?'le Supre e Court in the a'ove referred to <ud# ents, the present appeal is allowed and the award dated

21.10.2005 is modified accordingly. The appellants-claimants are entitled to the enhanced 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 1200) 3 Deduction   towards   personal Rs.1400/- (1/3rd of 4200) expenditure 1/3 rd

¶4Total Income Rs.2800/- (4200-1400) 4 Multiplier 17 5 Annual Dependency Rs.5,71,200/-(2800 X 12 X17) 6 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-7 Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/-8 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,44,000/-Parental  : Rs. 48,000/- x 2 Spousal  : Rs. 48,000/- x 1 Filial      : Rs. 48,000/- x Total Compensation Rs.7,51,200/-Amount Awarded by the  Rs.6,24,500/-Tribunal Enhanced amount Rs.1,26,700/-

¶11So 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 Nadu State Transport Corporation  (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants-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.

¶12The respondents No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation  alongwith interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount   of   compensation   alongwith   interest   in   the   accounts   of   the claimants/appellants as per the amount settled in the award dated 21.10.2005. The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

¶13Before   parting   with   the   judgment,   this   Court   extends   its appreciation to Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate, for his able assistance to the Court in the present matter. The Insurance Company is hereby directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

¶14Disposed of accordingly.

¶15Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE November 19, 2024 sonia arora Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking