Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manju And Ors vs Laxman Singh And Ors on 5 December, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988
FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-3312-2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.12.2024
Smt. Manju and others ......Appellants
Vs.
Laxman Singh and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar Rana, Advocate, and
Mr. Ram Lal Yadav, Advocate, for
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate,
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
18.04.2007 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Faridabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the claim petition filed by the
appellants/claimants, was dismissed.
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.01.2005, Ved Parkash
(since deceased) alongwith Khem Chand was travelling on a motorcycle
bearing registration No.HR-29-K-5572, which was being driven by Ved
Parkash, while Khem Chand was pillion rider. When they reached near
1 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988
FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -2-
Sugarcane Kanta at village Nariyala at about 7:00 P.M, a tractor trolley,
which was being reversed, struck against the motorcycle. As a result
thereof, both the riders fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Due to
grievous injuries, Ved Parkash succumbed there on the spot whereas, Khem
Chand was referred to a Nursing Home for treatment. In this regard, FIR was
registered by one Prabhu Dayal against driver of the offending vehicle i.e.
respondent No.1.
3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and
filed written reply denying the factum of accident/compensation.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:-
“1) Whether the accident in question took place due to
rash and negligent driving of tractor No.HR-30-B-2998
by Laxman Singh respondent No.1? OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation? If so how much and from whom? OPP.
3) Whether the petition is not maintainable in the
present form? OPR.
4) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and
misjoinder of parties? OPR.
5) Whether the petitioners have no locus standi and
cause of action to file the present petition? OPR.
6) Relief.”
5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence
on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the
present appeal.
2 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988
FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -3-
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
6. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants contends that
the learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petition by deciding
issue No.1 against the appellants/claimants after holding that they have
failed to prove that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving
of respondent No.1 (driver) and has not appreciated the evidence in correct
perspective while deciding their claim petition. The findings arrived at by
the learned Tribunal are based on the conjectures and surmises and wrongly
held that the tractor bearing registration No. HR-30-B-2998 was not
involved in the accident. Even, FIR was registered against respondent No.1
(driver) under Sections 283, 337 and 304-A IPC at Police Station Chhainsa,
District Faridabad. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has erred
while assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- per month
whereas, appellants/claimants have proved on record that deceased was
working as an Apprentice with DHBVNL. After the completion of his
apprentice, he would have got appointment as a Lineman and would draw a
salary in the pay scale of Rs.4,500-7,000. Therefore, he prays that the award
deserves to be set aside and compensation needs to be awarded to the
claimants/appellants, as per the latest law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company, however, vehemently argues that the award does not suffer from
any illegality and infirmity and the claim petition has rightly been dismissed
by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present
appeal.
3 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988
FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -4-
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case.
9. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:-
“Issue No.1 :
7. The claimants in order to prove this issue had
examined Khem Chand PW-1. He stated that he
alongwith Ved Parkash was coming from Ballabgarh to
Mohna on motorcycle on 24.1.2005 and when they were
near the weigh-bridge near village Nariyala at about
7.00 p.m., a tractor trolley was reversing and Ved
Parkash blew the horn but the tractor trolley came and
hit the motor cycle and Ved Parkash was run over and he
became unconscious. He stated that he sustained injuries
in the accident and the scars were still visible on the
forehead. He stated that he regained consciousness after
5-6 days in a Nursing Home at Mohna but he could not
recollect the name of Nursing Home. He stated that he
had seen the tractor trolley reversing and there was no
vehicle in between. He stated that he had not gone to the
police station in connection with the accident nor the
police had recorded his statement. He stated that he did
not tell the registration number of the vehicle to anybody.
8. Prabhu Dayal PW4 deposed that Khem Chand and
Ved Parkash had gone from village Mohna to Ballabgarh
and they had left the village at 9.00 a.m. and the same
evening at 8.00 p.m., he received information from some
one that the motor cycle had met with an accident and he
reached the spot alongwith 5-6 persons and saw the
motor cycle lying with the tractor trolla and both the
riders were lying on the spot and Khem Chand was a
little conscious and Ved Parkash had died and Khem4 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -5-
Chand had told him that it was dark and motor cycle hit
the tractor trolla from behind and thereafter, Khem
Chand became unconscious and they were shifted to the
hospital and he had made a statement Ex.P2 on which
the FIR was lodged.
9. Laxman Singh RW1 stated that no accident was
caused by him while driving the tractor and the tractor
was at their house in village Ghori and the trolley was in
their field. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he
was facing trial.
10. The onus of this issue was upon the claimants and
they were to prove the involvement of the tractor and
they were also to show that the tractor was being driven
by respondent no.1. Counsel for the claimants had taken
me through the pleadings and had urged that the version
given in the claim petition was the same as given in the
first information report and the tractor trolley was
reversing and it came and hit the motor cycle and that is
how the accident occurred and there was no discrepancy
or contradiction.
11. On the other hand, it was urged that the case was
full of contradictions and at each point there is a
variation and the tractor has been falsely involved and
the facts have been twisted to suit the claimants. It was
urged that the first version given to the police is
contained in the FIR which was lodged on 24.1.2005 at
8.00 p.m. and according to this, the tractor trolley was
parked and the accident occurred as it was night and the
motor cycle hit the tractor trolley from behind and it was
also mentioned in the FIR that the tractor trolley did not
have any mark of identification or number and the story
given in the petition was different and it does not speak
5 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988
FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -6-
about the trolley reversing. It was urged that if the
tractor trolley was reversing and according to Khem
Chand, they had seen it from a distance of 2.5 killas then
the motor cyclist should have taken care. It was urged
that Khem Chand was not an eye-witness nor his name
was mentioned in the FIR and he is an introduced
witness. It was urged that Prabhu Dayal had reached the
spot after the accident and since the FIR was against an
unknown vehicle and there was variance in his statement,
the statement of the witness should be disbelieved and it
was a case where motor cyclist had hit the trolley from
behind which proves that the deceased was himself
negligent and the evidence led on the file is beyond
pleadings and is, therefore, to be disbelieved. Reliance
was placed by Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 on Tarak
Mandal & Anr. Versus Hari Bhagwan & Ors., II ACC 24
(Rajasthan); Ram Karan & Ors. Versus Zile Singh &
Or(2002) ACC 15 (P&H); Smt. Sarli Devi Versus Mool
Chand & Ors., III (2003) ACC 428 (P&H); and
Smt.Kokilbai & Anr. Versus Abdul Baha, III (2003) ACC
526 (DB) (Madya Pradesh). Counsel for Insurance
Company had placed reliance on Minu B. Mehta and
another Versus Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and
another, 1977 ACJ 118 (Supreme Court); Surinder Kaur
and others Versus Raj Kumar and others, 199(3) PLR
709 (P&H; C.N. Krishna Murthy Versus P. Shashidhara
Murthy and others, 1999 ACJ 601 (Karnataka);
Chintaman Sadashiv Deshpande Versus Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation, 1986 ACJ 191
(Bombay); Indro Devi Versus Hari Ram Malhotra &
Ors., II (1997) ACC 515 (DB) (Himachal Pradesh);
Kiran Wati and others Versus Hari Singh and others,
6 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988
FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -7-
1992 ACJ 68 (P&H); Ram Karan Versus Zile Singh,
2001(3) RCR (Civil) 582 (P&H); Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Versus Rachna & Ors., I(2002) ACC 608
(P&H); The Unique Motor and General Insurance Co.
Ltd. And another Versus The New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. And others, 1967 ACJ 317 (Punjab); Vimala and
others Versus Devadoss and others, 1993 ACJ 321
(Madras); Smt. Pamela Gambhir Versus Smt.Santosh
Nayyar, 2001(2) RCR (Civil) 337 (P&H); New India
Assurance Company Limited Versus Rakesh Vashisht and
others, 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 803 (P&H); New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rakesh Vashisht & ors.,
2006(1) LJR 671 (P&H); and Secretary, Communication
Ministry, Government of India, Department of P & T,
New Delhi and others Versus Ramrao alias Ramdas and
others, 1991 ACJ 278 (Bombay).
12. In a claim petition, it is incumbent on the
claimant(s) to prove the negligence before holding the
owner, driver and the Insurance Company liable for
compensation. The accident occurred in the month of
January at about 7.15 p.m. The sun sets early and it is
pitch dark at 7.00 p.m. The FIR was lodged at 8.00 p.m.
but it does not mention the name of the driver or the
number of the offending vehicle. It was for the claimant
to adduce cogent and convincing evidence to prove the
involvement of the offending vehicle. The FIR was lodged
by Prabhu Dayal who admittedly reached the spot after
the accident had occurred. He had stated in his
complaint that the trolla was stationary and the motor
cycle had hit from behind. In the first statement made to
the police, it was also stated by Prabhu Dayal that there
was no indication that the vehicle was parked and it was
7 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988
FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -8-
on that account that the accident had occurred. A perusal
of the claim petition shows that a different version has
been given and it is stated that the tractor trolley was
reversing and it came and hit the motor cycle.
Respondent no. 1 had admitted that he was facing trial
but that itself is not sufficient. There is a variation in the
version given in the FIR and that contained in the claim
petition the altogether different story has been given. The
police had investigated the case. They would have
prepared the site plan which would have indicated the
spot where the accident had occurred. It was important
to see whether the trolley was parked on the road or on
the katcha portion. Admittedly, the trolley did not bear
any registration number. The version given by the
respondent was that the tractor was not attached to the
trolley and it was somewhere else. Therefore, it was the
claimants’ duty to examine such witnesses which could
connect the tractor to this accident. Khem Chand’s
presence on the spot is also doubtful. He had stated that
he had received injuries in the accident but he could not
give the name of the Nursing Home where he was
admitted. His MLR was not produced on record. There is
no reason why he did not lodge the FIR. The explanation
given by PW1 was that he had fallen unconscious and
had remained so for 4-5 days. If that was so, medical
record would have been produced in support of this plea.
In the absence of this evidence, it is difficult to accept
that Khem Chand was present at the spot or had
witnessed the accident. It is found that there is a
variation between the version given to the police at the
first available opportunity and the pleadings and Khem
Chand is an introduced witness. The FIR was against an
8 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988
FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -9-
unknown vehicle. The negligence of the tractor driver
has not been proved. The motor cycle had hit the trolley
from behind and in that case, it was to be shown that the
trolley was parked on the road. Thus, in the given
circumstances, I find that the claimants have failed to
prove the involvement of the tractor trolley or negligence
of its driver and the issue is answered against the
claimants.”
10. A bare reading of the above shows that the learned Tribunal has
not appreciated the evidence on record and has wrongly dismissed the claim
petition filed by the appellants/claimants on the ground that the accident did
not occur in the manner suggested and the appellants/claimants failed to
prove the involvement of the tractor trolley or negligence of respondent
No.1 (driver).
ANALYSIS OF RECORD
11. A perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal did not
take into consideration the factum of lodging of the FIR. Further, the
admission of respondent No.1 that he was facing trial also proves the factum
of accident. Therefore, the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal while
dismissing the claim petition is not acceptable to this Court.
12. A perusal of the record further shows that:-
(i) In postmortem report, in column of information furnished
by the police, it is written as ‘road side accident’.
9 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988
FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -10-
(ii) FIR was registered under Sections 283, 337 and 304-A
IPC at Police Station Chhainsa, District Faridabad, which
states the whole factum of accident.
(iii) Khem Chand (eye-witness) was examined as PW-1, who
narrated the factum of accident and stated that he and Ved
Parkash (since deceased) were going from Ballabgarh to
Mohana on motorcycle on 24.01.2005. When they
reached near weigh bridge near village Nariyala at about
7:00 P.M., a tractor trolley was being reversed there. Ved
Parkash (since deceased), who was driving the
motorcycle blew its horn. However, accident took place
between motorcycle and the tractor trolley. He fell on the
side whereas, Ved Parkash (since deceased) was run over
by trolley wheel. He became unconscious. The accident
occurred due to fault of tractor driver. In his cross-
examination, he has stated that he regained consciousness
after 5-6 days in a nursing home at Mohna.
(iv) Dr. Urmila Wadhawan, Medical Officer, ESI Hospital,
NH 3, Faridabad, was examined as PW3, who stated that
she conducted post mortem examination on the dead
body of Ved Parkash and brought the original post
mortem report and proved Ex.P1, which is a photocopy
of the same.
10 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988
FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -11-
(v) Prabhu Dayal was examined as PW4, who stated that he
received information from someone that motorcycle
being driven by Ved Parkash with Khem Chand had met
with an accident near village Naryala near sugarcane
kanta with tractor trolley. He was the author of FIR. He
stated that when they reached the spot, trolla was there
but tractor was not there. He further stated that trolla was
loaded with sugarcane and was bearing eight tyres.
(vi) Laxman Singh was examined as RW1, who in his cross-
examination admitted that he was facing trial for the
alleged accident.
13. A perusal of the above analysis prove the factum of accident
due to rash and negligent driving of tractor trolley by respondent No.1.
Therefore, the award dated 18.04.2007 is totally against the evidence on
record and has been passed without application of judicial mind. Therefore,
the same is liable to be set aside.
14. The calculation regarding Issue No.2 has already been done by
the learned Tribunal.
15. So far as Issue No.3 is concerned, since Issue No.1 is decided in
favour of the appellants/claimants, therefore, the claim petition is
maintainable and this issue is decided in favour of the appellants/claimants.
16. Issue Nos.4 and 5 were not pressed by the appellants/claimants
at the time of the claim proceedings before the learned Tribunal.
11 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988
FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -12-
17. A perusal of the award shows that the deceased was of 22 years
of age and was working as an Apprentice in DHBVNL. After the
completion of his apprentice, he would have got appointment as a Lineman
and would draw a salary in the pay scale of Rs.4,500-7,000. However, under
the prevailing facts of the present case, his income is to be assessed as
Rs.3,000/- per month, in accordance with the minimum wages prescribed for
skilled worker in the State of Haryana.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases
121], laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant
paras of the same 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.
31. Where 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 is12 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -13-
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.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only 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.
* * * * * *
42. We 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.
13 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -14-
19. Hon’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 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 in14 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -15-
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 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 established15 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -16-
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.”
20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &
Others [2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and
Pranay Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant
paras of the same 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
16 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988
FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -17-
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.
22. Consortium 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
17 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988
FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -18-
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.
23. The 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.
24. The 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.
CONCLUSION
21. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award
dated 18.04.2007 is hereby set aside. The appellants/claimants are held
entitled to compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-
18 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -19-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.3,000/-
2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1,200/- (40% of 3,000)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.1,050/- {(3,000 + 1,200) X 1/4}
expenditure 1/4th
4 Total Income Rs.3,150/- (4,200 - 1,050)
5 Multiplier 18
6 Annual Dependency Rs.6,80,400/- (3,150 X 12 X 18)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.2,40,000/-
Parental : Rs. 48,000/- x 2
Spousal : Rs. 48,000/- x 1
Filial : Rs. 48,000/- x 2
Total Compensation Rs.9,56,400/-
22. So 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 amount
of compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its
realization.
23. The Insurance Company-respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit
the amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The
Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amount of compensation along
with interest in the accounts of the claimants/appellants. The
19 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162988FAO-3312-2007 (O&M) -20-
claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank accounts details to the
learned Tribunal.
24. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is hereby directed to
disburse the current scheduled fees to Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, within a
period of 20 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
25. Disposed of accordingly.
26. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
05.12.2024
Virrendra
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes/No
20 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 23:42:50 :::