Suresh v. Karan Singh and Ors

215-2 IN T

Suresh (since de Karan Singh and

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH CM-6487-CII-2

1.

Thi Suresh.

2.

For the persons me representatives o

3.

CM

1.

The enhancement of Tribunal, Sonep Section 166 of t

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA Da eceased) through LRs.

VERSUS d Ors.

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for th r. Siddharth Grover, Advocate fo r. R.C.Kapoor, Advocate for resp -.- HARMA, J. (Oral)

2023 is is an application for imple r the reasons mentioned in the ap entioned in Para No.2 of the a of the deceased – Suresh. M stands disposed of. e present appeal has been prefe f compensation awarded by th pat (for short, 'the Tribunal') v the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, w

JAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-4916-2006 (O&M) ate of Decision : 08.11.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA he appellant. or respondent No.1. pondent No.3-Insurance Co. eading legal heirs of deceased pplication, the same is allowed application, are impleaded as le erred by the claimant/appellant he learned Motor Accident Cla vide award dated 02.01.2006 un whereby, the claimant/appellant w

- and egal for ims nder

awarded a comp Rs.6,05,120/- al FACTS NOT IN

2.

Bri Jitender was th

10.00 p.m the t towards Delhi. V the road at a m Bans Radhor, t Radhor in a zig Ved Parkash (si The accident too of the truck No witnessed by Sh Nayak Jai Parka criminal case be A IPC P.S.Rad statement of Jite the offending Insurance Comp jointly and seve

3.

Up the factum of ac

pensation of Rs.2,02,560/- out o long with proportionate interest @ N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that Ve he cleaner on truck No.HR-46-truck started from Bhaley Wala Ved Parkash (since deceased) w moderate speed. When the truck then a truck bearing No.HR-4 zag manner rashly and negligen ince deceased) by way of comi ok place due to the rash and neg o.HR-46-B-0775, namely, Kara hri Jitender. Soon after the accid ash Hospital, Kurukshetra, where earing FIR No.182, dated 09.10 dhor was registered against resp ender. Respondent No.2 – Rand vehicle which was insured w pany at the time of the accident rally liable to pay the compensat on notice of the claim petition, ccident/compensation.

f total amount of compensation @ 6% per annum. ed Parkash was the driver wher B-7549. On 08.10.2003 at ab a after loading the pieces of sto was driving the truck on left side reached near Deha Colony Cho 46-B-0775 came from the side ntly and struck against the truck ing on the wrong side of the ro gligent driving on the part of dri an Singh. The said accident w dent, Ved Parkash was taken to L e he was declared brought dead. .2003 under Sections 279/337/3 pondent No.1 on the basis of dhir Singh is the registered owner with respondent No.3 – Natio and as such all the respondents tion. , respondents appeared and den

i.e. reas bout ones e of otta e of k of oad. iver was Lok . A 304-r of onal are

4.

Fro issues:-

5.

Aft record, the learn of total amount @ 6% per ann enhancement of SUBMISSIONS

6.

Lea assessed by the learned Tribuna contention of le

om the pleadings of the parties,

¶1Whether the accident of respondent No.1 when h 0775 and in that accident injuries and died due to those

¶2If issue No.1 is pro deceased is entitled for com and from whom? OPP

¶3Whether the petition form? OPR

¶4Whether the respond driving licence at the time of

¶5Relief. ter taking into consideration th ned Tribunal awarded compensat of compensation i.e.Rs.6,05,120 num. Hence the claimant/appe f compensation awarded by the T S OF LEARNED COUNSELS arned counsel for the claiman learned Tribunal is on the lowe al erroneously applied multiplier arned counsel that the learned T

the Tribunal framed the follow has been caused at the neglige he was driving truck No.HR-46 deceased Ved Parkash sustain e injuries, as alleged? OPP oved, whether the widow of mpensation? If so, to what amo is not maintainable in the pres ent No.1 was not having a va f the accident, as alleged? OPR-3 he pleadings and the evidence tion to the tune of Rs.2,02,560/- 0/- along with proportionate inter llant filed the present appeal Tribunal. S FOR THE PARTIES nt-appellant contends that amo er side. He further submits that of 15 instead of 17. It is the furt Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1

wing nce 6B-ned ount sent alid

¶3on out rest for ount ther /3rd

of income towa to include future in its calculation

7.

Per the learned Trib of compensation

8.

I h record of this ca

9.

A p the income of wrongly applied deceased – Ved of income towa amount was gra of consortium. T

10.

Ho Transport Corp down the law o are as under:- "30 per ind stan dec

ards personal expenses instead o e prospects, loss of estate, funer n. r contra, learned for the responde bunal vide award dated 02.01.20 n. Therefore, he prays for dismis have heard learned counsel for ase. perusal of the award indicates th the deceased as Rs.5000/-, ho d multiplier of 15 instead of 1 d Parkash. Further, the learned T ards personal expenses instead anted for future prospects, loss o Therefore, the award requires ind n'ble Supreme Court in the poration and Another [(2009) 6 on assessment of compensation

¶0Though in some cases the rsonal and living expenses is dicated in Trilok Chandra, th ndardised deductions. Having cisions of this Court, we are of

f 1/4th as per settled law and fai ral expenses and loss of consorti ent-Insurance Company argues t 006 has rightly assessed the amo ssal of the present appeal. the parties and perused the wh hat the Tribunal has rightly asses owever, the learned Tribunal 17 keeping in view the age of Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1 of 1/4th as per settled law and of estate, funeral expenses and l dulgence of this Court. case of Sarla Verma Vs. De 6 Supreme Court Cases 121], l and the relevant paras of the sa e deduction to be made towa calculated on the basis of un he general practice is to ap a considered several subsequ f the view that where the decea

iled ium that ount hole ssed has /3rd loss elhi laid ame ards nits pply uent

was dep num whe

¶31par bac exp mo get par to e and be con bec be only wou and of t as

s married, the deduction toward e deceased, should be one-thir pendent family members is 2 t mber of dependent family memb ere the number of dependent fam Where the deceased was a ba rents, the deduction follows a chelors, normally, 50% is d penses, because it is assumed th re on himself. Even otherwise, tting married in a short time, in rent(s) and siblings is likely to b evidence to the contrary, the fath d will not be considered as a de considered as a dependant. I ntrary, brothers and sisters will cause they will either be indepe dependent on the father.

¶2Thus even if the deceased is ly d the mother would be consid uld be treated as the personal a d 50% as the contribution to the the bachelor is large and depend in a case where he has a wido

ds personal and living expenses rd (1/3rd) where the number to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where bers is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5 mily members exceeds six. achelor and the claimants are different principle. In regard deducted as personal and liv hat a bachelor would tend to sp there is also the possibility of which event the contribution to be cut drastically. Further, subj her is likely to have his own inco ependant and the mother alone w In the absence of evidence to l not be considered as dependa endent and earning, or married, survived by parents and siblin dered to be a dependant, and 5 and living expenses of the bache e family. However, where the fam dent on the income of the deceas owed mother and large number

s of r of 5th) d to ving end f his ject ome will nts, , or ngs, 50% elor mily sed,

you exp wil *

¶42men Sus an 25 y to 3 for uni to 6

11.

Ho Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sections 166, 1 aspects:-

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

(D) esta

unger non-earning sisters or b penses may be restricted to one-t ll be taken as two-third.

*

* We therefore hold that the m ntioned in Column (4) of the t samma Thomas³, Trilok Chandr operative multiplier of 18 (for th years), reduced by one unit for e 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 yea 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 4 its for every five years, that is, M 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years n'ble Supreme Court in the case y Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 63-A and 168 of the Motor Ve ) Deduction of personal an ultiplicand; ) Selection of multiplier depen ) Age of deceased on basis for ) Reasonable figures on con ate, loss of consortium and funer

brothers, his personal and liv third and contribution to the fam *

*

* multiplier to be used should be table above (prepared by apply ra and Charlie), which starts w he age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 every five years, that is M-17 for ars, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M 46 to 50 years, then reduced by M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for and M-5 for 66 to 70 years. e of National Insurance Comp C 680] has clarified the law un ehicles Act, 1988, on the follow nd living expenses to determ nding on age of deceased; r applying multiplier; nventional heads, namely, loss ral expenses, with escalation;

ving mily e as ying with 1 to r 26 M-14 two r 56 pany nder wing mine

(E) age The

) Future prospects for all cate es: with permanent job; self-emp e relevant portion of the judgmen "52. As far as the conventi it difficult to agree with the granted Rs.25,000 towards towards loss of consortium care and guidance for minor of care and minor children d to Santosh Devi, it does n conventional and traditional determined on percentage b acceptable criterion. Unlike heads have to be quantified reasonable foundation. Ther that price index, fall in ba many a field have to be n oblivious to the same. Ther aspect. Otherwise, there determination of the same an there will be immense variat as a consequence of which, and courts are likely to be seemly to fix reasonable sum

egories of persons and for differ ployed or fixed salary. nt is reproduced as under:- ional heads are concerned, we f e view expressed in Rajesh². It s funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,0 and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss r children. The head relating to l does not exist. Though Rajesh ref not seem to follow the same. T l heads, needless to say, cannot basis because that would not be e determination of income, the s d. Any quantification must hav re can be no dispute over the f nk interest, escalation of rates noticed. The court cannot rem re has been a thumb rule in t will be extreme difficulty nd unless the thumb rule is appli tion lacking any kind of consiste the orders passed by the tribun e unguided. Therefore, we think ms. It seems to us that reasona

rent find has s of loss fers The t be e an said ve a fact s in main this in ied, ncy nals k it

figures on conventional hea consortium and funeral Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 revisiting the said heads is revisit should not be fact-cen that it would be condign quantified should be enhan three years and the enhance in a span of three years. W that will bring in consistency *

*

59.3. While determining th actual salary to the incom prospects, where the deceas below the age of 40 years, sh be 30%, if the age of the dec In case the deceased was bet addition should be 15%. actual salary less tax.

59.4. In case the deceased salary, an addition of 40% o the warrant where the decea An addition of 25% where th 40 to 50 years and 10% wh

ads, namely, loss of estate, loss expenses should be Rs.15,0 respectively. The principle s an acceptable principle. But ntric or quantum-centric. We th that the amount that we h nced on percentage basis in ev ement should be at the rate of 1 We are disposed to hold so beca y in respect of those heads. *

*

* he income, an addition of 50% e of the deceased towards fut sed had a permanent job and w hould be made. The addition sho ceased was between 40 to 50 yea tween the age of 50 to 60 years, Actual salary should be read was self-employed (or) on a fix of the established income should ased was below the age of 40 yea he deceased was between the age here the deceased was between

s of 000, of hink ave very 0% ause % of ture was ould ars. d as ixed d be ars.

12.

Ho Company Limi 130] after cons settled the law r as under:-

age of 50 to 60 years shou method of computation. Th income minus the tax compon

59.5. For determination of t personal and living expenses be guided by paras 30 to 3 reproduced hereinbefore.

59.6. The selection of multi Table in Sarla Verma¹ read w

59.7. The age of the decease the multiplier.

59.8. Reasonable figures on estate, loss of consortium a 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 1 amounts should be enhanced years." n'ble Supreme Court in the ca ited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuh sidering Sarla Verma (supra regarding consortium. Relevan "21. A Constitution Bench o with the various heads und awarded in a death case.

uld be regarded as the necess he established income means nent. the multiplicand, the deduction s, the tribunals and the courts sh 32 of Sarla Verma which we h iplier shall be as indicated in with para 42 of that judgment. ed should be the basis for apply conventional heads, namely, loss and funeral expenses should be 15,000 respectively. The afores d at the rate of 10% in every th se of Magma General Insura hru Ram & Others [2018(18) S a) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) nt paras of the same are reprodu of this Court in Pranay Sethi² de der which compensation is to One of these heads is loss

sary for hall ave ying s of Rs said hree nce CC has uced ealt be

consortium. In legal parlanc term which encompasses consortium", and "filial con would include the company solace and affection of the family. With respect to a relations with the deceased sp

21.1. Spousal consortium pertaining to the relationshi compensation to the surviv society, cooperation, affecti conjugal relation".

21.2. Parental consortium premature death of a pa protection, affection, soc training".

21.3. Filial consortium i compensation in the case of accident leading to the death agony to the parents and fa agony for a parent is to los Children are valued for the and their role in the family u

ce, "consortium" is a compendi "spousal consortium", "paren nsortium". The right to consorti y, care, help, comfort, guidan deceased, which is a loss to spouse, it would include sex spouse. is generally defined as rig ip of a husband-wife which allo ving spouse for loss of "compa ion, and aid of the other in ev is granted to the child upon rent, for loss of "parental a ciety, discipline, guidance a is the right of the parents f an accidental death of a child. h of a child causes great shock a amily of the deceased. The grea se their child during their lifeti eir love, affection, companions unit.

ious ntal ium nce, his xual ghts ows any, very aid, and to An and test me.

¶22Consortium is a special about the status and worth jurisdictions world-over hav child's consortium far exc compensation awarded in th jurisdictions therefore pe compensation under loss of c The amount awarded to the of the love, affection, care a child.

¶23The Motor Vehicles Act providing relief to the vict genuine claims. In case wh child, or unmarried son or d be awarded loss of conso consortium. Parental conso lose their parents in motor few High Courts have awa However, there was no clari which compensation could consortium.

¶24The amount of compensa will be governed by the pri under "loss of consortium" a

l prism reflecting changing nor h of actual relationships. Mod ve recognised that the value o ceeds the economic value of e case of the death of a child. M ermit parents to be award consortium on the death of a ch parents is a compensation for l and companionship of the decea is a beneficial legislation aimed ims or their families, in cases here a parent has lost their mi daughter, the parents are entitled ortium under the head of fi rtium is awarded to children w vehicle accidents under the Act arded compensation on this cou ity with respect to the principles d be awarded on loss of fi ation to be awarded as consorti inciples of awarding compensat as laid down in Pranay Sethi². In

rms dern of a Most ded hild. loss ased d at s of inor d to filial who t. A unt. s on ilial ium

CONCLUSION

13.

In above referred

02.01.2006 is enhanced compe Sr. No. M F D ex T M A L F L P S F

T

A

E

14.

So Court in Dara S

present case, we deem it ap the sister of the deceased, an of filial consortium. N view of the law laid down by to judgments, the present app modified accordingly. The ensation as per the calculations m Heads Monthly Income uture prospects @40% Deduction towards personal xpenditure (1/4th ) Total Income Multiplier Annual Dependency Loss of Estate uneral Expenses Loss of Consortium arental : Rs.48,000/- x 1 pousal : Rs.48,000/- x 1 ilial : Rs.48,000/- x 2 Total Compensation Amount awarded by the Tribun Enhanced amount far as the interest part is conce Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shy

ppropriate to award the father a n amount of Rs 40,000 each for l the Hon'ble Supreme Court in peal is allowed. The award da appellant-claimant is entitled made here-under:- Compensation Awarded Rs.5,000/- Rs.2000/- (40% of 5000) Rs.1750/- [1/4 of 7000] Rs.5,250/- Rs.10,71,000/- (5250 x 12 17) Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.1,92,000/- Rs.12,99,000/- nal Rs.06,05,120/- Rs.6,93,880/- erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31

and loss ated to d x

and R.Valli and Supreme Cour per annum on th date of its realiz

15.

The compensation al from the date o pendency of the representatives disburse the am legal representa ratio settled by of claimant/app bank account de

16.

In

18.07.2024, the scheduled fees t date of receipt o

17.

Dis

18.

Pen

November 08, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

d Others VS. Tamil Nandu State t Cases 107, the appellants-claim he enhanced amount from the da zation. e Insurance Company is directed long with interest with the Tribu of receipt of certified copy of e present appeal, claimant/appell have been taken on record, th mount of compensation along w atives of claimant/appellant and the Tribunal in award dated 02 pellant and respondent Nos. 4 a etails to the Tribunal. views of the order passed i e insurance company is hereby to Mr. R.C.Kapoor, Advocate w of copy of this judgment. sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st 2024

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

te Transport Corporation (2022 mants are granted the interest @ ate of filing of claim petition till d to deposit the enhanced amoun unal within a period of two mon f this judgment. Since, during lant – Suresh has died and her le he Tribunal is further directed with interest in the accounts of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as per .01.2006. The legal representati and 5 are directed to furnish th in FAO No.1682 of 2007 da y directed to deposit the curr within a period of ten days from tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

2) 5 @9% nt of nths egal d to ives heir ated