Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Ajmer Kaur vs Mohinder Singh on 15 May, 2025
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.11469 of 2022)
AJMER KAUR AND OTHERS APPELLANTS
A1 : AJMER KAUR
A2 : JAGGA SINGH
A3 : RAMPAL SINGH
A4 : VIRPAL KAUR
VERSUS
MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS
R1 : MOHINDER SINGH
R2 : DATTA RAM
R3 : UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.05.21
17:13:54 IST
Reason:
that the compensation awarded by the High Court needs
enhancement on basically three fronts. It was submitted that
2
first of all, the income has been computed as Rs.2,500/-
(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) per month, which was in the
teeth of the evidence adduced before the court where the
mother had deposed that the deceased besides doing other work
also used to sell milk and his income was Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) per month. However, he submitted that raising
his claim on the minimum wages, which is the standard applied
by all the courts, the daily wage rate being Rs.110.8, the
amount would come to at least Rs.3,300/- (Three Thousand Three
Hundred) per month. Secondly, learned counsel pointed out that
there was no amount given on the head of loss of filial
consortium, which has now been accepted to be payable as per
judgment of this Court in Smt. Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport
Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 read with the decision in Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018)
18 SCC 130. Learned counsel submitted that there are four
claimants and the person having died, the final amount not
exceeding Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs), the interest
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mansa, Punjab
(for short, the “MACT”) of 8% per annum being reduced by 6%
per annum by the High Court was unjustified and thus, the same
deserves to be restored to 8% per annum.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2
submitted that the accident occurred in the year 2008 and at
3
that time, without there being a fixed income of the deceased,
a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) per
month, being notionally taken by the court, cannot be faulted
with. It was further submitted that the judgment in National
Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680,
does not envisage loss of filial consortium and is restricted
to parental consortium only. With regard to interest, learned
counsel submitted that it is for the Court to take a view on
the same.
5. Having considered the matter, we find that the objection
raised by the appellants in the present case, restricting
their claim for further compensation only on the basis of
income and loss of filial consortium as also the interest, is
well founded. The judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) read
together with Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra),clearly
entitles the appellants to loss of filial consortium
at the rate of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) per head.
Thus, the amount of compensation stands enhanced by
Rs.2,00,0000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs). The income also stands
enhanced from Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred)
per month to Rs.3,300/- (Rupees Three Thousand Three Hundred)
per month and the interest stands restored to 8% per annum
from 6% per annum. The parties at the request of the Court
have given the total figure after incorporating what has been
4
allowed in this order. The same comes to Rs.7,79,533/- (Rupees
Seven Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Three)
excluding the interest, which shall be added to it and shall
be payable from the date of filing of the application before
the MACT till the date of realisation. The same be paid, if
not already paid, after adjusting what had already been paid,
within a period of two months from today and shall be
deposited before the MACT which in turn, shall transfer the
amount in the account of the appellants, within two weeks
thereafter.
6. After the order was dictated, learned counsel for
respondents no.1 and 2 and respondent no.3-insurance company
submitted that the brothers have joined the proceeding later
on, as the original claim petition was filed only by the
father and the mother and upon death of the father, they have
joined the proceeding. Thus, objection was raised that they
may not be granted the benefit of loss of filial consortium.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid submission, the same is
noted to be rejected outright. The fact that they are siblings
and the law provides for loss of filial consortium to the
siblings, there being no estoppel against law, in our
considered opinion, they are entitled to be given such relief,
which we have already granted to them.
8. The appeal stands allowed in the aforementioned terms.
5
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………………………J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA]
NEW DELHI
15th MAY, 2025
6
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.16 SECTION IV-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11469/2022
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-03-2021
in FAO No.2631/2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh]
AJMER KAUR & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MOHINDER SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 15-05-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Vidyut Kayarkar, Adv.
Mr. Umang Shankar, AOR
Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mrs. Sunita Singh, Adv.
Mr. Abhigya Kushwah, AOR
Ms. Anamika Kushwaha, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Rohatgi, Adv.
Mrs. Shubhangini Rohatgi, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Adv.
Ms. Sayma Feroz, Adv.
Mr. Manvendra Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AORUPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RLeave granted.
2. The appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed order.
7
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAPNA BISHT) (ANJALI PANWAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
[ad_1]
Source link