Inderpal Singh v. Varinder Kumar and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 219-2 FAO-5234-2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.10.2024 Inderpal Singh ......Appellant(s) Vs. Varinder Kumar and another ....Respondent(s) CORAM:  HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Mohit Giri, Advocate for Mr. Harmeet Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate and Ms. Simran, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

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

02.06.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, 'the Tribunal')  for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellant, who are the family member of the deceased. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

¶2The brief facts of the case are that on 08.08.2004, Manish Kumar (deceased), Smt. Surjit Kaur (deceased), Smt. Harjit Kaur (deceased) and Smt. Rumal Kaur (injured-claimant) alongwith Dharam Singh and Inderpal Singh and some other persons were going from 'Kamani' Chowk, Yamuna Nagar to Ambala by sitting in rear portion of truck No. HYD-6512. The truck was being loaded with iron rods and some other iron material. The truck was driven by Varinder Kumar respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. At about 12.00 mid night when the truck reached within the area of village Kharu Khera and the same first hit against wall of bridge by going on wrong side of the road and then it turned turtle and the iron rods had fallen on the persons sitting in rear portion of the truck. All the injured were removed to Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt. However, Smt. Harjit Kaur, Smt. Surjit Kaur and Manish Kumar were declared brought dead.

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

¶4From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1)  Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent   driving   of   truck   no.   HYD-6512   by respondent No.1-Varinder Kumar causing death of Manish Kumar, Smt. Surjit Kaur, Smt. Harjit Kaur and injuries to Smt. Rumal Kaur? OPP. 2)  If issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP. 3)  Whether respondent No.2-insurance company is not liable  to   pay  any  compensation   in   view   of   the preliminary   objections   taken   in   the   written statement? OPR-2. 4)  Relief.

¶5After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record,   the   learned   Tribunal   awarded   compensation   to   the   tune   of Rs.1,80,000/-   alongwith   interest   @   7.5%   per   annum.   Hence   the claimants/appellants   filed   the   present   appeal   for   enhancement   of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS

6.  The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erroneously taken the income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum as per Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 although the deceased used to do tailoring work. He further submits that the learned Tribunal failed to include future prospects in its calculation. He further contends that less amount was awarded for loss of consortium and for funeral charges.  He further contends that no amount was awarded towards loss of estate. 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,   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.

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

¶9A perusal of the award indicates that the Tribunal has assessed the income   of   the   deceased   at   Rs.15000/-   per   annum   without   taking   into consideration that the deceased used to do tailoring work.  Furthermore, no amount was calculated for future prospects, loss of consortium and loss of estate. No amount was awarded for funeral charges. Therefore, the award requires interference of this Court. SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS

6.  The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erroneously taken the income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum as per Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 although the deceased used to do tailoring work. He further submits that the learned Tribunal failed to include future prospects in its calculation. He further contends that less amount was awarded for loss of consortium and for funeral charges.  He further contends that no amount was awarded towards loss of estate. 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,   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.

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

¶9A perusal of the award indicates that the Tribunal has assessed the income   of   the   deceased   at   Rs.15000/-   per   annum   without   taking   into consideration that the deceased was used to do tailoring work.  Furthermore, no amount was calculated for future prospects, loss of consortium and loss of estate. No amount was awarded for funeral charges. Therefore, the award requires interference by this Court. /ETT.ED .A0 ON COMPEN/ATION 1+. $on@)le Supreme &ourt in the "ase o# Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 1(2009) 6 /234"5" C#24! C '"' 1216 laid do*n the la* on assessment o# "ompensation and the rele!ant paras o# the same are as under:- A30. 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 FAO-5234-2006 (O&M) --- 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.

¶11Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of   National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following aspects:-

(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand;

(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased;

(C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier;

(D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation;

(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed salary. The relevant portion of the judgment 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 FAO-5234-2006 (O&M) -/- 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 FAO-5234-2006 (O&M) -.- 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 FAO-5234-2006 (O&M) -1+-

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." 1,.  $on@)le Supreme &ourt in the "ase o# M 85  G"("4 9 I('24 (%" C#53 (: .&5&!"; ,'+ N (2 R 5  9& ' C<2<42 R 5 & O!<"4' 1201*(1*) /CC 1306 a#ter "onsidering  / 49  ,"45  ('234 ) and P4 ( : /"!<& (/234 ) has settled the la* regarding "onsortium. Rele!ant paras o# the same are reprodu"ed 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 FAO-5234-2006 (O&M) -1,- 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. CONC.U/ION

¶18In !ie* o# the la* laid do*n )% the $on@)le Supreme &ourt in the a)o!e re#erred to 2udgments  the present appeal is allo*ed. (he a*ard dated  02.06.2006  is   modified   accordingly.  The   appellants-claimants   are entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here-under:- Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded No. 1 Monthly Income   Rs. 3000/- 2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.4200 (40% of 3000/-)

¶3Deduction   towards   personal Rs.1400/- (4200X1/3rd) expenses

¶3Total Income  Rs.2800/- (4200-1400) 4 Multiplier  18 5 Annual Dependency  Rs.6,04,800/-(2800 x 12 x 18) 6 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/- 7 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/- 8 Loss of Consortium Rs.48,000/- Spousal :   Rs. 48,000/-x1 Total Compensation Rs.6,88,800/- Amount Awarded by the  Rs.1,80,000/- Tribunal Enhanced amount Rs.5,08,800/- (rounded off to Rs.5,09,000)

¶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 Nandu 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 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the accounts of the claimant/appellant as per ratio settled in the award dated 02.06.2006. The claimant/appellant is directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

¶16Disposed off accordingly.

¶17Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE October 18, 2024 G Arora Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking