Salochna Devi and Ors v. Sajeet Singh and Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 205 FAO-3206-2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 18, 2024 Salochna Devi and others ......Appellants Vs. Sajeet Singh @ Surjit and others ......Respondents CORAM:  HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr.Manoj Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Ms.Madhu Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company ---- S  UDEEPTI SHARMA  J. (ORAL)

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

10.02.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellants/claimants, who are the family members of the deceased-Randhir Singh. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

¶2The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the claim petition are that on 25.4.2004, Randhir Singh (since deceased) at about 9.30 p.m. was going on his motor-cycle bearing registration No. HR-05-K-0928 from Gharaunda to Karnal. When he reached at the turn of village Bastara, then one Balram who was acquaintance with Randhir Singh signaled to stop his motor cycle and requested him that their kid is seriously ill and is to be shifted in the hospital Karnal and as such asked for lift for himself, his brother's wife Nirmala and kid. Randhir Singh after giving lift to them was going on the aforesaid motor-cycle and when they reached at the T point of village Madanpur Gamri at G.T. Road. At that time, Randhir Singh was driving his motor cycle at slow and moderate speed on his due left side of the road, meanwhile respondent No.1 while driving his trailer bearing registration No. HR-46A-9225 in a rash, negligent, careless manner, without caring for the safety of others, without blowing any horn and without giving any indicator came from the side of Karnal and abruptly sweared his trailer from Karnal to Gharaunda-Panipat side one way G. T. Road towards T-point of Madanpur Gamri, on the other one way G.T. Road going from Panipat Gharaunda towards Karnal and in the said process dashed his trailer in the motor-cycle of Randhir Singh. As a result of accident, all the occupants of the motorcycle fell down and received serious and multiple injuries. Randhir Singh succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital.

¶3Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied the factum of accident/compensation.

¶4From   the   pleadings   of   the   parties,   the  Tribunal   framed   the following issues:-

1.. Whether the present accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of trailer bearing registration No. HR-46A-9225 by respondent No.1 Sajeet Singh alias Surjit Singh ? OPP

2. Whether Randhir Singh son of Sher Singh has died as a result of the injuries received in this accident, if so, to what amount of compensation Smt. Salochna Devi etc. claimants of MACT case No.79 of 2004 are entitled to receive ? OPP.

¶3Whether Smt. Nirmla Devi claimant of MACT case No.91 of 2004 suffered injuries in this accident, if so to what amount compensation, she is entitled to receive ? OPP.

¶4Whether Balram claimant of MACT case No.92 of 2004 received injuries in this accident, if so to what amount of compensation he is entitled to receive ? OPP.

¶5Who is liable for the amount of compensation ? OPP

¶6Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so to what effect ? OPR 3.

¶7Relief.

¶5After ta;'n& 'nto cons'derat'on the plead'n&s and the ev'dence on record, the learned $r'%unal a(arded compensat'on to the tune of 4s.5,),,)003- -4s.2.5 lacs to cla'mant-Salochna >ev', 4s.#.25 lacs each to m'nor ch'ldren and 4s.),,)003- to cla'mant-!hamel' >ev'. 6ence, the cla'mants3appellants f'led the present appeal for &rant of enhancement of compensat'on a(arded %" the $r'%unal to cla'mants. -UBMI--ION- OF THE 9EARNED COUN-E9- FOR THE PARTIE- ). $he learned counsel for the cla'mant-appellant contends that the amount assessed %" the learned $r'%unal 's on the lo(er s'de. 6e further contends :- '0 $hat the mult'pl'er of #5 should %e appl'ed 'nstead of #2? ''0 $hat no amount (as &ranted for future prospects and loss of estate?

iii) That the amount awarded for loss of consortium 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.

¶7Per   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, she prays for dismissal of the appeal.

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

¶9A perusal of the record shows that as per Salary Certificate Ex.P2, salary of the deceased was Rs.7100/- per month.  After deducting the tax payable, which is Rs.6,040/-net annual income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.79,160/-. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.6,596/- (Rs.79,160?12).

i) A perusal of the award indicates that the Tribunal has erred while applying multiplier of 15 instead of 12.

ii) Further no amount was granted for future prospects and loss of estate.

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

¶10Hon'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:- C30. 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 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. ##. 6on/%le   Supreme   !ourt   'n   the   case   of    National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. <(201?) 16 -CC 6,0> has clar'f'ed the la( under Sect'ons #)), #)3-A and #), of the Motor *eh'cles Act, #+,,, on the follo('n& aspects:- -A0 >educt'on of personal and l'v'n& e@penses to determ'ne mult'pl'cand? -90 Select'on of mult'pl'er depend'n& on a&e of deceased? -!0 A&e of deceased on %as's for appl"'n& mult'pl'er? ->0 4easona%le f'&ures on convent'onal heads, namel", loss of estate, loss of consort'um and funeral e@penses, ('th escalat'on? -B0 =uture  prospects  for  all   cate&or'es   of  persons   and   for d'fferent a&es: ('th permanent jo%? self-emplo"ed or f'@ed salar". $he relevant port'on of the jud&ment 's reproduced as under:- C52. 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 additionSonia Arora , 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." #2.  6on/%le   Supreme   !ourt   'n   the   case   of  Ma5)a   G & +a. I&%7+a&#  C!)2a&@ 9$)$t 0 3%1 Na&7 Ra) a.$a% C/7/+7 Ra) & Ot/ +% <201,(1,) -CC 130>  after cons'der'n&   -a+.a 3 +)a  (%72+a)  and  P+a&a@ - t/$ (-72+a) has settled the la( re&ard'n& consort'um.  4elevant 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".

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 #3. n v'e( of the la( la'd do(n %" the 6on/%le Supreme !ourt 'n the a%ove referred to jud&ments, the present appeal 's allo(ed and the a(ard dated #0.02.200) 's mod'f'ed accord'n&l". $he appellants-cla'mants are ent'tled to the enhanced compensat'on as per the calculat'ons made here-under:- Sr. 6eads !ompensat'on A(arded No. # Monthl"  ncome 4s.)5+)3-2 =uture prospects D 40  E 4s.2)3,3--)5+)F40E0 3 Deduction   towards   personal Rs.2308/-(1/4 of 9234) expenditure 1/4

¶4Total Income Rs.6926/-4 Multiplier 15 Rs.1,03,880/- (6926X 15) 5 Annual Dependency R.12,46,680/- (6926X15x12) 6 Loss of Estate Rs.18000/-7 Funeral Expenses Rs.18000/-8 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,96,000/-Parental  : Rs. 48,000/- x 2 Spousal  : Rs. 48,000/- x 1 Filial      : Rs. 48,000/- x 1 Total Compensation Rs.14,74,680/-Amount Awarded by the  Rs.5,68,600/-Tribunal Enhanced amount Rs.9,06,080/-

¶14So 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.

¶15The 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   Award   dated   10.02.2006.   The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the

¶16In 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 Ms. Madhu Sharma, Advocate within 10 days from the receipt of copy of this order.

¶17Disposed of accordingly.

¶18Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE November 18, 2024 sonia arora Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking