Gobind Sngh Etc v. Avtar Sngh Etc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 208-2 FAO-3564-2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 19, 2024 Gobind Singh and others ........Appellants Vs. Avtar Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:  HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Yadvinder Singh Turka, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. ---- S  UDEEPTI SHARMA  J. (ORAL)

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

08.11.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of death of Parsin Kaur, in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 10.12.2002.

¶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 S  UBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

¶3Learned counsel for appellants contends that  the compensation awarded by the Ld. Tribunal is on lower side. He further contends that

ii) That the Ld. Tribunal has erred in assessing the contribution of the deceased towards her family on lower side.

iii) Further, the Ld. Tribunal has granted no compensation under future prospects and loss of estate. Moreover, the amount granted for loss of consortium and funeral expenses is also on the lower side. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the amount of compensation be granted as per settled law.

¶4Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent,   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 shows that the deceased was a household lady and stated to be an agriculturist and also doing a business of dairy farming, however, no income proof has been led in evidence to prove the same but the fact that she was a household lady, cannot be ignored and her notional income should be more than of a highly skilled labour and hence, the Tribunal has erred in taking the contribution of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum towards her family. This Court has dealt with the same issue in FAO-1292-2006  titled as Jasbir Singh and Another Vs. Surjit Singh  & others, the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:- "6. In FAO No. 218 of 2014, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while relying upon the principles laid down in Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others [2001(4) RCR(Civil) 673], made the following observations:- "Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even while noticing that the income of a skilled worker in 2012 was approximately Rs.8000/- the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.9000/-. As per him once the notional income had been taken a deduction had to be made for personal expenses. This argument is flawed. In Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others reported as 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 673 (where the accident had taken place in 1981) the Hon'ble Supreme Court evaluated the contribution of a house wife at Rs.3000/-per month. The accident in the present case took place after 23 years. In my considered opinion to tag a house wife as a 'skilled worker' alone does not do complete justice to her multifarious role as a home manager. Keeping in view the lapse of 23 years between the accident in the case of Lata Wadhwa and the present accident and my conclusion that a house wife is something more than a mere skilled worker it would not be unreasonable to estimate the contribution of the deceased in the present case at a higher figure. On the whole I see no reason for reducing the quantum."

¶7I find sufficient reason to follow the judgment in FAO No. 218 of 2014, particularly as I am informed that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the order in this case has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Similarly, the SLP filed in the other case cited by the appellants has also met the same fate. Consequently, these orders have attained finality, leaving no scope for further dispute regarding their binding nature.Sonia Arora

¶8It is imperative to acknowledge the multifaceted role of a housewife as a homemaker. Her contributions extend beyond measurable economic parameters, encompassing household management, child care, emotional support, and the upkeep of familial stability. These services, though often unrecognized in monetary terms, are invaluable to the functioning and well-being of a household. In assessing compensation, the court must factor in this indispensable contribution, which would otherwise necessitate considerable expenditure if outsourced. In view of the above, it is just and reasonable to determine the monthly income of the deceased – Charanjit Kaur, housewife at Rs.9,000/- per month, therefore, the award requires interference by this Court. =. %n vie! of the a*ove, the inco'e of the deceased *eing a house!ife is taken to *e 6s./0005$ p.'. ii3 A perusal of the a!ard further reveals that keeping in vie! the age of the deceased as #2 (ears at the ti'e of accident, the 'ultiplier of )- should have *een applied instead of ),2 iii3 ;urther no a'ount !as granted for future prospects and loss of estate. Moreover, the a'ount granted for loss of consortiu' is also on lo!er side. Therefore, it re8uires indulgence of this &ourt. /ETT8ED 8A9 ON COMPEN/ATION +. :on2*le Supre'e &ourt in the case of  Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another :(200-) 6 /;3,"*" C#;,! C '"' 121<, laid do!n the la! on assess'ent of co'pensation and the relevant paras of the sa'e 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 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. /. :on2*le Supre'e &ourt in the case of   National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. :(201=) 16 /CC 680< has clarified the la! under Sections )--, )-#$A and )-+ of the Motor .ehicles Act, )/++, on the follo!ing aspects:$ 0A3 eduction of personal and living e<penses to deter'ine 'ultiplicand? 0@3 Selection of 'ultiplier depending on age of deceased? 0&3 Age of deceased on *asis for appl(ing 'ultiplier? 0 3 6easona*le figures on conventional heads, na'el(, loss of estate, loss of consortiu' and funeral e<penses, !ith escalation? 0A3 ;uture  prospects  for  all   categories   of  persons   and   for different ages: !ith per'anent Bo*? self$e'plo(ed or fi<ed salar(. The relevant portion of the Budg'ent is reproduced as under:$ >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 = * * * * *

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." )0.  :on2*le   Supre'e   &ourt   in   the   case   of  M 0*   G"(", 4 I(';, (%" C#*3 (> 8&*&!". 5'2 N (; R *  4& ' C1;1,; R * & O!1",' :2018(18) /CC 130<  after considering   / ,4  5",*   (';3, )  and  P, ( > /"!1& (/;3, ) has settled the la! regarding consortiu'.  6elevant 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. WithSonia Arora 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. RE8IEF )). %n vie! of the la! laid do!n *( the :on2*le Supre'e &ourt in the a*ove referred to Budg'ents, the present appeal is allo!ed and the a!ard dated

08.11.2005 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.9000/- 2 Future prospects @  40% Rs.3600/- (40% of 9000) 3 Deduction   towards   personal Rs.3150/-(1/4 th of 12,600) expenditure 1/4th

¶4Annual Dependency Rs.1,13,400/-(9450X12) 5 Multiplier (16) Rs.18,14,400/-6 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-7 Funeral Expenses (as awarded by  Rs.25,000/-Tribunal) 8 Loss of Consortium Rs.2,88,000/-Parental  : Rs.48,000/- x 5 Spousal  : Rs.48,000/- x 1 Filial      : 9 Total Compensation Rs.21,45,400/-10 Compensation due to  Rs.10,72,700/-contributory negligence 11 Amount Awarded by the  Rs.1,50,000/-Tribunal 12 Enhanced amount Rs.9,22,700/-

¶12So 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.

¶13Since both the parties were held liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 50% each, therefore, the respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay 50% of the enhanced compensation only. The respondent-Insurance   Company   is   directed   to   deposit   the   enhanced   amount   of compensation alongwith interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest in the account of the claimants/appellants as per the ratio settled in the award dated 08.11.2005. The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

¶14Further, the Insurance Company is hereby directed to disburse the current scheduled fee to Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of  copy of this judgment.

¶15Disposed of accordingly.

¶16Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE December 19, 2024 sonia arora Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking