(O&M) Paramjit Kaur and Ors v. Sukhpal Singh and Ors

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

¶1Widow and two minor children (now major) of deceased-Dr.Mohd. Bhilla have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The only issue which arises for consideration is with respect to the compensation to be awarded to the claimants as factum regarding death of deceased in a road accident involving the vehicle owned by respondent No.1, driven by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3, is not in issue in the present case.

¶2Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has submitted that the compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is highly inadequate and the same deserves to be enhanced. It is submitted that the income of the deceased has been taken as Rs.90,000/- per annum, whereas, as per the income tax return of the year 2007-2008, the income of the deceased was Rs.95,000/- per annum, thus, at least the said amount should have been taken as the income of the deceased. It is also submitted that the multiplier which has been taken in the present case by the Tribunal is '14' and as the deceased was 39 years old, thus, the multiplier should have been taken as '15'. It is stated that the personal expenses to the extent of 1/3rd have been taken, whereas, as per law, the said deduction should have been 1/4th as there were four dependents of the deceased at the time of his death. It is further stated that only an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded on account of funeral expenses, whereas, the said amount should have been Rs.18,150/- and the amount on account of loss of consortium has only been granted to the extent of Rs.5,000/-, whereas a total of Rs.1,93,600/- (there being four claimants) should have been awarded to the present appellants on the said count. It  is submitted that the Tribunal  has not taken into consideration the future prospects and thus, 40% of the income of the deceased is also required to be added on account of future prospects. It is further submitted that on account of the same, an additional amount of Rs.8,76,150/- deserves to be awarded to the present appellants along with interest @ 9% per annum.  In support of her arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation   and   another  reported   as  (2009)   6   SCC   121,  National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others  reported as

(2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported as (2018) 18 SCC 130. On behalf of the appellants, a chart has been submitted, the relevant portion of which has been reproduced herein below:-"RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1.  Details of the Deceased-a.  Name- Dr. Mohd. Bhilla b.  Date of Birth- 15.09.1969 c.  Age-39 years d.  Educational Qualification- Bachelor of Electro Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery e.  Occupation- Doctor (Self Employed) f.  Date of Accident- 10.06.2008

2.  INCOME as observed in the Award by Ld. Tribunal-a.  PW1 Randhir Singh, Senior Income Tax Assistant, Income Tax Office Barnala, brought record of the Income Tax Returns filed by the deceased. b.  PAN No.- AJFPB6638M c.  PW1 proved the income tax returns relating to Assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 which are Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/D. . 2005-06: Rs. 75,000/- . 2006-07: Rs. 90,000/- . 2007-08: Rs. 95,000/- . 2008-09: Rs. 1,05,000/- (ITR filed by the claimant)

3.  COMPENSATION GRANTED BY LD TRIBUNAL-HEAD COMPENSATION GRANTED Income taken Rs. 90,000/- per annum Personal Expenses Deduction 1/3rd i.e. Rs. 60,000/-Multiplier 14 Compensation 14 x Rs. 60,000/- i.e. Rs.8,40,000/-Loss of Consortium Rs.5,000/-Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/-Total Compensation Rs.8,50,000/-

5.  COMPENSATION PRAYED IN APPEAL FOR ENHANCEMENT-HEAD   COMPENSATION PRAYED i.  Income  Rs. 95,000/- (ITR of 2007-08) ii. Future Prospects 40% of the Income i.e. Rs.38,000/-iii. Deduction   towards 1/4th of (Rs. 95,000 + Rs. 38,000) ? Rs.33,250/-personal expenditure Total Income comes to Rs. Rs.99,750/-iv. Multiplier Of 15 i.e. Rs.99,750 x 15 ? Rs. 14,96,250/-v Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- (as Pranay Sethi 10% increase in every three years) vi. Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- (as Pranay Sethi 10% increase in every three years) vii Loss of Consortium (as Pranay Sethi 10% increase in every three years) Spousal   Consortium-  Rs.48,400/-  Parental Consortium-  Rs.   48,400   each   child   Filial Consortium- Rs.48,400/- Final amount comes to Rs.1,93,600/-viii. Total Compensation Rs.17,26,150/-

6.  FINAL AMOUNT TO BE GRANTED-Total Compensation Rs. 17,26,150/- Compensation   granted   by   Ld. Rs. 8,50,000/- Tribunal Amount to be granted Rs. 8,76,150/- CHANDIGARH sd/- sd/- DATE:11.11.2024 (TUSHAR SHARMA)(SHRINKHLA SINGH) ADVOCATES COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS"

¶3Learned   counsel   appearing   for   respondent   No.3-Insurance Company, on the other hand, has submitted that the rate of interest which is sought to be claimed by the appellants is highly excessive and at best the interest that can be awarded on the additional compensation should be 6% per annum.

¶4This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the &hart and is o! the opinion that the entries made in the hart are in a ordan e )ith la) and deserve to /e approved.

¶4@on</le the Supreme &ourt in para ;0 o! Sarla Verma=s case *Supra+ had o/served as under:- "We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, 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, %21< 3or )6 to >0  ears8 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." =. A perusal o! the a/ove )ould sho) that !or the age o! $7 "ears, multiplier o! :14< is to /e applied.

¶9.he @on</le Supreme &ourt in "rana  Sethi=s case *Supra+, has held as under:-"59.In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-

59.1 The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

59.2 As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.

59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50% of FAO-5562--2010         -=- 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 7as sel32emplo ed or on a 3i9ed salar 8 an addition o3 >0? o3 the esta4lished income should 4e the 7arrant 7here the deceased 7as 4elo7 the a&e o3 >0 ears. 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 paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. <9.6 The selection o3 multiplier shall 4e as indicated in the Ta4le  in  Sarla   Verma   read  7ith  para&raph   >2  o3  that @ud&ment. <9.# The a&e o3 the deceased should 4e the 4asis 3or appl in& the multiplier. <9.$ (easona4le 3i&ures on con5entional heads8 namel 8 loss o3 estate8 loss o3 consortium and 3uneral e9penses should 4e (s. 1<8000:28 (s. >08000:2 and (s. 1<8000:2 respecti5el . The a3oresaid amounts should 4e enhanced at the rate o3 10? in e5er  three  ears.

¶60The reference is answered accordingly. Matters be placed before the appropriate Bench."

¶3A perusal o! the a/ove judgment )ould sho) that it )as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that addition of some percentage of the actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects was also required to be taken into consideration and the said percentage was specifically defined with respect to persons who were having a permanent job or/were self-employed or on a fixed salary. The chart as reproduced in para 42 of the judgment of Sarla Verma's case (Supra) was approved and a total amount of Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium or funeral expenses was also mentioned which is required to be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

¶9The Hon'ble Supreme Court in  Magma General Insurance Company Limited's case (Supra) had further observed that in death case, under the head of loss of consortium, the parents of the deceased are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium and children   are   entitled   to   parental   consortium.   To   the   widow,   spousal consortium is to be given. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi  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 sur5i5in& spouse 3or loss o3 Acompan 8 societ 8co2operation8 a33ection8 and aid o3 the other in e5er con@u&al relation.B

21.2 "arental consortium is &ranted to the child upon the premature death o3 a parent8 3or loss o3 Aparental aid8 protection8   a33ection8   societ 8   discipline8   &uidance   and trainin&.B

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 recognized 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 %otor Vehicles 6ct is a 4ene3icial le&islation aimed at pro5idin& relie3 to the 5ictims or their 3amilies8 in cases o3 &enuine 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. "arental   Consortium   is   a7arded   to children 7ho lose their parents in motor 5ehicle accidents under   the   6ct.   6   3e7   .i&h   Courts   ha5e   a7arded compensation on this count 5. 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   Sethi   (supra).   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."

¶10In the abovesaid judgment, an amount of Rs.40,000/- each was awarded to the father and sister of the deceased and thus, the amount of consortium   awarded   was   made   dependent   upon   the   number   of claimants/legal representatives.

¶11In the present case, 40% of the income on account of future prospects has been rightly sought to be added, in the chart. The multiplier of '15' would be applicable in the present case as the age of the deceased was 39 years. The amount sought on account of funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium are also in accordance with the latest law. It has further been rightly stated that the deduction on account of personal expenses in the present case should be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd as there were four dependents at the time of passing of the award. Thus, on account of the same, the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.8,76,150/-. On the aspect of interest, it would be relevant to mention that this Court has repeatedly deemed it fit to award interest @ 7.5% per annum and is of the opinion that even in the present case, the said rate of interest would be appropriate.

¶12Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award dated 25.07.2009 is modified and respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to pay an additional amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.8,76,150/- to the appellants/claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment within a period of six weeks from today, in the same proportion as has been given in the award. November 12, 2024 (VIKAS BAHL) naresh.k                  JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (898) FAO-5562-2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 12.11.2024 Paramjit Kaur and others ...Appellants Versus Sukhpal Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Ms. Shrinkhla Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Mayank Mathur, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. ****