Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar And Ors vs Bhura Masih And Ors on 27 November, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161750
FAO-3353-2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-3353-2006
Date of Decision: 27.11.2024
Raj Kumar and others ...Appellants
vs.
Bhura Masih and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate
for the respondent-Insurance Co.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. This is an old matter pertaining to the year 2006 but no one has
put in appearance on behalf of the Insurance Company.
2. Previously vide order dated 18.07.2024 in FAO No.1682 of
2007, this Court had already issued directions to the Insurance Companies
that in the event, any of their empanelled counsel fails to appear, the Court
would request the counsel empanelled with the Insurance Companies, who
is present in the Court to assist in the matters. Further, the concerned
Insurance Companies were directed to disburse the current scheduled fees
to the counsel engaged by this Court for assisting in the matters.
3. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate
accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company.
1 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 21:21:00 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161750
FAO-3353-2006 2
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has handed over copy of the
paper-book alongwith relevant record to the learned counsel for
respondent- Insurance Company.
5. In view of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682
of 2007, the Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current
scheduled fees to Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, the counsel engaged by
this Court in the present case.
FAO No. 3353-2006
6. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
08.04.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Jagadhri (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation
granted to the claimant to the tune of Rs.1,03,000/- along with interest @
7.5% per annum, on account of death of Santosh Devi in a Motor Vehicular
Accident, occurred on 06.05.2000. However, the Tribunal has held that
Insurance Company is liable to make the payment of compensation to the
claimants but respondent No. 2 was held liable to pay the interest @ 9 per
cent per annum on the amount of compensation to the claimants w.e.f the
date of institution of claim petition till 28.10.2005 and thereafter, the
Insurance Company was held liable to pay the interest @ 7.5 % per annum
till final payment i.e after 29.10.2005. At the first instance, respondent-
Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount to the claimants and
liberty was granted to recover the same from respondent No. 2 up to
28.10.2005.
7. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is
2 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 21:21:01 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161750
FAO-3353-2006 3
confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a
detailed narration of the facts of the case are not reproduced for the sake of
brevity.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
8. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that
the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and
deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be
allowed and compensation should be enhanced as per latest law.
9. Per 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. He, thus prays for dismissal of the appeal.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case.
11. A perusal of the award shows that the deceased was household
lady and the Ld. Tribunal has erred in taking her notional income as
Rs.500/- per month. However, this Court in FAO No.2363 of 2007 titled as
Smt. Gurbachan Kaur and State of Haryana and others, decided on
11.11.2024 has assessed the notional income of the housewife as Rs.6000/-
per month. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:-
“In the instant case based on the evidence on
record, including the testimony of PW-2 Gurbachan
Kaur (claimant), it is evident that the
appellant/claimant’s role as homemaker entails
multifaceted responsibilities and substantial
3 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 21:21:01 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161750FAO-3353-2006 4
contribution that surpass those of a skilled worker. In
the light of these considerations and above referred to
judgments and further to ensure an inequitable and just
determination, it is appropriate to assess the
appellant/claimant’s notional income as Rs.6,000/- per
month.”
12. In view of the above referred to judgment of Smt. Gurbachan
Kaur (supra), in the instant case, the income of the decesed (housewife) is
assessed as Rs.6000/- per month. Further nothing has been awarded towards
loss of estate. Moreover, the amount awarded under funeral charges, loss of
consortium is on the lower side. No amount was awarded towards future
prospects. Hence, the award requires indulgence of this Court.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
13. 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 dependent4 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 21:21:01 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161750FAO-3353-2006 5
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 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 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 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.
* * * * *
*
42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above5 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 21:21:01 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161750FAO-3353-2006 6
(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.
14. 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 funeral6 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 21:21:01 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161750FAO-3353-2006 7
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 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 hold so because that
will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.
* * * *
7 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2024 21:21:01 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161750
FAO-3353-2006 8
*
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 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 be8 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 21:21:01 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161750FAO-3353-2006 9
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”
15. 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 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
9 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 21:21:01 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161750
FAO-3353-2006 10
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 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
10 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 21:21:01 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161750
FAO-3353-2006 11
the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of
filial consortium.
CONCLUSION
16. 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 08.04.2006 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. 6000/-
2 Future prospects @40 Rs.2400 (6000X40%)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.2800 (8400X1/3rd)
expenditure 1/3rd
4 Total Income Rs.5600/-(8400-2800)
5. Multiplier 15
6. Annual Dependency Rs.10,08,000/-
(5600X12X15)
7. Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
8. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-
9. Loss of Consortium : Rs.1,92,000/-
Parental: Rs.48000X3
Spousal: Rs.48000X1
10. Total Compensation awarded Rs.12,36,000/-
11. Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,03,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs.11,33,000/-
17. 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 amount so
calculated shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim petition, till the date of realization.
11 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 27-12-2024 21:21:01 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161750
FAO-3353-2006 12
18. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the enhanced amount 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 directed to disburse the same to the appellants-claimants in their
bank accounts, as per ratio settled in the award dated 08.04.2006. The
appellants-claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the
Tribunal.
19. However, respondent No.3-Insurance Company is entitled to
recover the interest from respondent No. 2 up to 28.10.2005, as per award
dated 08.04.2006.
20. Further Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current
schedule fee to Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, within a period of ten days
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
21. Before parting with the judgment, this Court extends its
appreciation to Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for his able assistance to the
Court in the present matter.
22. Disposed of accordingly.
23. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
November 27, 2024
Gaurav Arora
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
12 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2024 21:21:01 :::