Madan Lal and Ors v. Swaran Ram and Ors

FAO-2223-2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2223-2006 -2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 20, 2024 MADAN LAL (since deceased) AND ORS.   ......Appellants Vs. SWARAN RAM AND ORS.             ......Respondent(s) CORAM:  HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Arzoo Moudgil, Advocate for Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Rishma Verma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA  J .

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

14.12.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.2,49,600/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, on account of death of Veena wife of Madan Lal (since deceased) in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 21.07.2004. However, the Tribunal has granted the recovery rights to the Insurance Company.

¶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 are not reproduced for the sake of brevity. FAO-2223-2006 2 SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

¶3  The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. 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 that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. He, thus prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶5Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has informed the Court that respondent No. 2 filed FAO No. 1667-2007 challenging the award dated

14.12.2005 and the same was allowed. The award was set aside to the extent of granting recovery rights to the respondent-Insurance Company.

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

¶7A perusal of the award shows that the deceased was household lady and the Ld. Tribunal has erred in taking her notional income as Rs.2400/- per month. However, this Court in FAO No.2363 of 2007 titled as Smt. Gurbachan Kaur and State of Haryana and others, decided on  11.11.2024 has assessed the notional income of the housewife as Rs.6000/- per month. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:- "In the instant case based on the evidence on record, including the testimony of PW-2 Gurbachan Kaur (claimant), it is evident that the appellant/claimant's role as homemaker entails multifaceted responsibilities and substantial contribution that surpass those of a skilled worker. In the light of these 2024.12.20 12:12considerations and above referred to judgments and further to FAO-2223-2006 3 ensure an inequitable and just determination, it is appropriate to assess the appellant/claimant's notional income as Rs.6,000/- per month."

7.  *n  ie1 o! t"e atio e re!erred to Dudg$ent o! 1(t. G2*)a"3a% 4a2* ($27*a), in t"e instant case, t"e inco$e o! t"e decesed ("ouse1i!e) is assessed as Rs.5333;) per $ont". Burt"er not"ing "as 0een a1arded to1ards loss o! estate., !uneral c"arges E loss o! consortiu$.   No a$ount 1as a1arded to1ards !uture prospects. ?ence, t"e a1ard re@uires indulgence o! t"is +ourt. 1ETT0ED 0A8 ON COMPEN1ATION

¶6?on:0le  Supre$e +ourt  in   t"e  case  o!  Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 9(200:) 6 127*e(e C 2*t Ca$e$ 121;, laid do1n t"e la1 on assess$ent o! co$pensation and t"e rele ant paras o! t"e sa$e are as under:) F30. 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 (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 cutGaurav Arora FAO-2223-2006 , 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. .3. ?on:0le Supre$e +ourt in t"e case o!  National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 9(201<) 16 1CC 6=0; "as clari!ied t"e la1 under Sections .55, .5')A and .57 o! t"e Motor %e"icles Act, .677, on t"e !ollo1ing aspects:)

(A) Deduction   o!   personal   and   li ing   eCpenses   to   deter$ine 2024.12.20 12:12 $ultiplicandG FAO-2223-2006 >

(H) Selection o! $ultiplier depending on age o! deceasedG (+) Age o! deceased on 0asis !or appl,ing $ultiplierG

(D) Reasonatile  !igures  on con entional  "eads, na$el,,  loss  o! estate, loss o! consortiu$ and !uneral eCpenses, 1it" escalationG

(I) Buture prospects !or all categories o! persons and !or di!!erent ages: 1it" per$anent Do0G sel!)e$plo,ed or !iCed salar,. /"e rele ant portion o! t"e Dudg$ent is reproduced as under:) F52. 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 haveGaurav Arora FAO-2223-2006 6 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." FAO-2223-2006 < ...  ?on:0le Supre$e +ourt in t"e case o!  Ma?(a Ge%e*a@ I%$2*a%"e C (7a%6 0#(#te5 -$. Na%2 Ra( a@#a$ C323*2 Ra( & Ot3e*$ 9201=(1=) 1CC 130; a!ter considering  1a*@a -e*(a ($27*a) and P*a%a6 1et3# (127*a) "as settled t"e la1 regarding consortiu$.  Rele ant paras o! t"e 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 Gaurav Arora compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most FAO-2223-2006 = 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. CONC0U1ION .&. *n  ie1 o! t"e la1 laid do1n 0, t"e ?on:0le Supre$e +ourt in t"e atio e re!erred to Dudg$ents, t"e present appeal is allo1ed. /"e a1ard dated .2..&.&334  is   $odi!ied   accordingl,.  /"e   appellants)clai$ants   are   entitled   to en"anced   co$pensation   to   0e   paid   0,   t"e   *nsurance   +o$pan,,   as   per   t"e calculations $ade "ere)under:) 1*. Hea5$ C (7e%$at# % AAa*5e5 N . . Mont"l, *nco$e   Rs. 5333;) & Buture prospects <23 Rs.&233 (5333J23=) ' Deduction to1ards personal eCpenditure Rs.&.33 (7233J.;2t" .;2t" Gaurav Arora2 /otal *nco$e  Rs.5'33;)(7233)&733) FAO-2223-2006 9

¶5Multiplier  16

¶6Annual Dependency  Rs.12,09,600/-(6300X12X16)

¶7Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-

¶8Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-

¶9Loss of Consortium :    Rs.2,40,000/- Parental: Rs.48000X4 Spousal: Rs.48000X1

¶10Total Compensation awarded Rs.14,85,600/-

¶11Deduction Rs.2,49,600/-Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced amount Rs.12,36,000/-

¶13 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 amount so calculated shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization.

¶14Respondent   No.3-Insurance   Company   is   directed   to   deposit   the enhanced amount along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the appellants-claimants in their bank accounts, as per ratio settled in the award dated  14.12.2005. The appellants-claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

¶15The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current schedule fees to Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶16Disposed of accordingly.

¶17Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. November 20, 2024              (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Gaurav Arora               JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking :  Yes/No 2024.12.20 12:12  Whether reportable       : Yes