Himachal Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Kirna Devi & Others on 24 December, 2024
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
FAOs No.141, 166 & 277 of 2023
Reserved on: 17.12.2024
Date of decision: 24.12.2024
________________________________________________
1. FAO No. 141 of 2023:
United India Insurance Company Limited.
…..Appellant
Versus
Kirna Devi & others
……Respondents
2. FAO No. 166 of 2023:
Shah Nawaj @ Kaku.
…..Appellant
Versus
Kirna Devi & others
……Respondents
3. FAO No. 277 of 2023:
Dalip Kumar (since deceased, through LRs)
…..Appellant
Versus
Kirna Devi & others
……Respondents
__________________________________________________
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
__________________________________________________
1. FAO No. 141 of 2023:
For the appellant: Mr. Pritam Singh Chandel,
Advocate.
For respondents No. 1 to 4: Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For respondents No.
5(b) & 5(c). Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate.
For respondent No. 6: Mr. Rajinder Singh Verma, Advocate.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
2. FAO No. 166 of 2023:
For the appellant: Mr. Rajinder Singh Verma,
Advocate.
For respondents No. 1 to 4: Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For respondents No.
5(b) & 5(c). Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate.
For respondent No. 6: Mr. Pritam Singh Chandel, Advocate.
3. FAO No. 277 of 2023:
For the appellants: Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate.
For respondents No. 1 to 4: Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For respondents No. 5: Mr. Rajinder Singh Verma, Advocate.
For respondent No. 6: Mr. Pritam Singh Chandel, Advocate.
Sushil Kukreja, Judge
Since all these appeals are the offshoot of impugned
award dated 01.05.2023, passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P.
(hereinafter referred to as the learned “Tribunal below”) in MACT
Case No. 127 of 2016, they are being taken up together for
disposal.
2. The appeal (FAO No. 141 of 2023) is maintained by
the appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited
(hereinafter referred to as “the Insurance Company”), under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”),
3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )against award dated 01.05.2023, passed by the learned Tribunal
Below, in a claim petition filed by the petitioner/claimants
(hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) under Section 166 of
the Act, which was allowed and the claimants were held entitled
for compensation of Rs.16,64,200/-, with a prayer to exonerate
the appellant-Insurance Company from the liability to bear the
amount of compensation, interest etc. by quashing and setting
aside the impugned award.
3. Appeals, i.e., FAO No. 166 of 2023 and FAO No. 277
of 2023, have been filed by Shah Nawaj and Dalip Kumar (since
deceased through LRs), who were driver and owner of the
offending vehicle, i.e., HP50-0642, respectively, under Section
173 of the Act, with a prayer to quash and set-aside the
impugned award to the extent of recovery of the compensation
amount from them.
4. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal
are that the claimants/petitioners maintained a petition under
Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation on account of death
of Shri Om Prakash (deceased), being his legal representatives.
As per the claimants, the deceased died in a motor vehicle
accident, which took place on 11.06.2016, at around 10:30 a.m.
It has been averred in the claim petition by the claimants that
4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
when the deceased was going on foot near Satluj Cafe at
Khopari, he was hit by Auto Rickshaw, bearing No. HP-50-0642,
which was being driven by Shah Nawaj (appellant in FAO No.
166 of 2023), and he sustained multiple head injuries, as a result
of which he died at PGI, Chandigarh, while he was under
treatment. As per the claimants, the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle,
as he was driving the vehicle on wrong side of the road that too in
a rash and negligent manner. It was further averred that the
deceased was self-employed, as a Private Contractor of RCC
buildings etc. and he also used to manage the entire domestic
affairs of the family. He was the only bread winner of the family
and the entire family was dependent upon him. As per the
claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/50,000.00 per
month from contractor ship and Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from
agricultural and horticulture.
5. The owner of the offending vehicle, i.e. late Shri Dalip
Kumar, who was respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal
below, by filing reply to the petition, contested the petition,
wherein he averred that there was no fault of respondent No. 2-
Shah Nawaj @ Kaku (driver of the offending vehicle), as there
was a stationary vehicle on the road side. The deceased tried to
5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
cross the road immediately and while crossing the road, the
deceased was rashly walking and due to sudden and immediate
appearance of the deceased, the accident took place. As per the
replying respondent, respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle
carefully and with caution.
6. The driver of the offending vehicle, Shah Nawaj Alias
Kaku, who was respondent No. 2 before the learned Tribunal
below, contested the claim petition by filing his separate reply,
wherein it was averred that there was no fault of him as there was
a stationary vehicle on the side of the road. The deceased tried to
cross the road immediately and while crossing the road, he was
stepping rashly and due to the sudden and immediate
appearance of the deceased behind the stationary vehicle, the
accident took place. He further averred that he was driving his
vehicle with due care and caution.
7. The appellant, insurance company who was
respondent No. 3 before the learned Tribunal below, also filed its
separate reply, wherein preliminary objections qua maintainability,
that the insured was not possessing a valid registration-cum-
fitness certificate, route permit, token tax, passenger tax, that the
driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving license at
the time of the accident, that the petition was filed in collusion
6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
with respondents No.1 & 2 were taken. On merits, it was averred
that vehicle No. HP-50-0642 was not insured with respondent No.
3-Insurance Company at the time of the accident. It was further
averred that the amount of compensation, as claimed by the
petitioners-claimants, was highly exaggerated. Lastly, dismissal
of the claim petition was prayed.
8. The petitioners-claimants filed rejoinder to the replies,
wherein the stand taken by the respondents was denied and the
averments made in the claim petition were reasserted.
9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following
issues were framed on 08.03.2019:
“1. Whether Sh. Om Prakash had died on
11.06.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of
Rickshaw bearing registration No. HP-50-0642
driven by respondent No. 2 at place Khopri
near Satluj View Cafe, Rampur Bushahr? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation as claimed, if so to what
amount and from whom? OPP
3. Whether respondent No. 2 was not driving the
vehicle at the time of the accident and the
accident had occurred on account of negligent
act of the deceased? OPR-2
4. Whether the petition is not maintainable?
OPR-3
5. Whether the vehicle was used in violation of
terms and conditions of the insurance policy
and without effective driving license? OPR-3
6. Relief.”
7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the claim
petition was allowed and the claimants were awarded
compensation of Rs.16,64,200/- alongwith interest @ 7% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the
entire amount and it was held that the amount of the
compensation shall be paid at the first instance by the insurance
company, who may recover the same from the owner and driver.
Feeling dissatisfied, the insurance company filed appeal, i.e.,
FAO No. 141 of 2023, seeking quashing and setting-aside of the
impugned award and the owner as well as the driver of the
vehicle have also filed appeals, i.e., FAO No. 277 of 2023 and
FAO No. 166 of 2023, respectively, for modification of the
impugned award to the extent of recovery of compensation
amount from them by setting aside the findings of the learned
Tribunal below to that extent.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company contended that the impugned award passed by the
learned Tribunal below is legally unsustainable as once the
tribunal had held that the driver of the vehicle in question was not
having a valid and effective driving license at the time of the
accident, it could not have incurred liability on the Insurance
Company to initially pay the compensation amount to the
8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
claimants and thereafter to get the same recovered from the
owner and driver and such finding deserves to be modified and
the entire liability deserves to be fastened upon the owner and
driver of the vehicle in question. He further contended that while
passing the impugned award, the learned Tribunal below had
committed a grave error in calculating the future prospects of the
deceased and in allowing the parental and filial consortium to the
claimants.
11. On the other hand, the learned Senior counsel for the
owner and learned counsel for the driver of vehicle in question
contended that the Tribunal below had erred in holding that the
driver of the vehicle in question was not holding a valid and
effective driving license as the insurance company has miserably
failed to prove that the driver of the vehicle in question was not
having a valid and effective driving license at the time of the
accident.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the Insurance
Company, learned counsel for the claimants, learned Senior
Counsel for the LRs of the owner & learned counsel for the driver
of the vehicle in question and meticulously examined the entire
records.
13. It is not in dispute that on 11.06.2016, at about 10:30
9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
a.m., near Sutlej Cafe at place Khopari, the deceased-Om
Prakash died in an accident that had occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of respondent No. 2- Shah Nawaj @ Kaku,
while driving Auto Rickshaw, bearing registration No. HP-50-0642,
which was owned by respondent No. 1-Shri Dalip Kumar (since
deceased)
14. Now, the first question which arises for consideration
is as to whether the driver of the vehicle in question, Shah Nawaj,
was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of
the accident. The appellant-Insurance Company had examined
RW-1, Shri Jasvinder Singh, Clerk from the office of Regional
Transport Authority (RTA) Jallandhar, Punjab, who had brought
the record pertaining to license No. 15810 for the year 2010-11,
dated 04.08.2010. While appearing in the witness-box as RW-1,
he deposed that the aforesaid license was issued by RTA,
Jallandhar, Punjab, in favour of one Nipun Sharma and not in the
name of the driver of the vehicle in question, i.e., Shah Nawaj.
However, in cross-examination, this witness has clearly stated
that the register, which was brought by him did not bear the stamp
of the office of RTA, Jalandhar and he further admitted that there
was no proof to show that the aforesaid register was of the office
of RTA, Jallandhar. He further admitted that there was no paging
10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
in the aforesaid register.
15. Section 26 of the Act provides that the State
Government shall maintain a register with respect to the driving
license issued and renewed by the Licencing Authorities of the
State Government containing the names and addresses of the
holders of the driving licenses, license numbers, date of issue or
renewal of licenses, date of expiry of the licenses, classes and
types of vehicles authorized to be driven and such other
particulars as the Central Government may prescribe. At this
stage, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 26 of the Act,
which provides for the maintenance of the register of driving
licenses by the State Government, which is reproduced
hereunder:
“26. Maintenance of State Registers of Driving Licences.
(1) Each State Government shall maintain, in such form as
may be prescribed by the Central Government, a register to
be known as the State Register of Driving Licences, in
respect of driving licences issued and renewed by the
licensing authorities of the State Government, containing the
following particulars, namely:–
(a) names and addresses of holders of driving
licences;
(b) licence numbers;
(c) dates of issue or renewal of licences;
(d) dates of expiry of licences;
(e) classes and types of vehicles authorised to be
driven; and
(f) such other particulars as the Central
Government may prescribe.
(2) Each State Government shall supply to the Central
Government a 1 [printed copy or copy in such other form as
11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )the Central Government may require] of the State Register of
Driving Licences and shall inform the Central Government
without delay of all additions to and other amendments in
such register made from time to time.
(3) The State Register of Driving Licences shall be
maintained in such manner as may be prescribed by the State
Government.”
16. In the case on hand, the perusal of the cross-
examination of RW-1, Clerk from the office of RTA, Jalandhar,
Punjab, shows that the register which he had brought before the
learned Tribunal below was not maintained in accordance with the
provisions of Section 26 of the Act, as he admitted in his cross-
examination that the register did not bear the stamp of the office
of the RTA, Jalandhar. He further admitted that there was no
proof to show that the aforesaid register was of the office of RTA,
Jalandhar and that there was no paging in the register. Therefore,
no authenticity can be attached to the register/record which was
summoned by the appellant-Insurance Company in order to prove
that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having a valid
and effective driving license. In the absence of there being any
genuine register, the learned Tribunal below had mis-construed
and mis-interpreted the statement of RW-1 in order to arrive at a
conclusion that the driver of the vehicle in question was not
holding a valid and effective driving license.
17. In Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs. National
12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
Insurance Company (2013) 10 SCC 217 which too dealt with
genuineness of the driving license, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
had noted that even after perusing the evidence tendered by the
Licensing Authority, it could not be conclusively ascertained
whether the driving license was genuine or not; the Register
maintained for issuing the driving licenses showed certain entries
of 1985; the license concerned bore a number that was not
included in the Register. The evidence also stated that it was
possible that the other license Registers maintained in the year
1985, which were not readily available, may have contained the
details of the license concerned. The relevant paras of the
aforesaid judgment reads as under:
“4. The other contention on merits is that the insurer
had not established before the Tribunal that the
licence issued to Nirmal Singh was fake. In this
context, our reference has been invited to
Annexure-2-evidence of the licensing authority
before the Tribunal. It is stated that as per the
available office records, no driving licence was
issued to Nirmal Singh on 12.06.1985 with
no.12385 of 1985. Licence numbers of 1985 as
per record start from 22579 of 1985. Photocopy
of the register maintained for issuing the
licences was marked as R-1. However, it was
also stated that: –
“…It can be possible that other licence
register pertaining to year 1985 are not
available today as it might be misplaced
during the shifting of our office…” Still
further, it was stated:
“… It is possible that the registers which are
misplaced might contain the name of
Nirmal Singh.”
13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
… … … … … … … …
11. On facts, in the instant case, the appellant
employer had employed the third respondent
Nirmal Singh as driver in 1994. In the process of
employment, he had been put to a driving test
and he had been imparted training also. The
accident took place only after six years of his
service in PRTC as driver. In such
circumstances, it cannot be said that the insured
is at fault in having employed a person whose
licence has been proved to be fake by the
insurance company before the Tribunal. As we
have already noted above, on scanning the
evidence of the licensing authority before the
Tribunal, it cannot also be absolutely held that
the licence to the driver had not been issued by
the said authority and that the licence was fake.
Though the appellant had also taken a
contention that the compensation is on the
higher side, no serious attempt has been made
and according to us justifiably, to canvas that
position.”
18. In the case on hand also, in view of the cross
examination of RW-1, Clerk from the office of RTA, Jallandhar, no
reliance can be placed upon the register that was summoned by
the appellant-Insurance Company. There is no denial of the fact
that the evidence means legally admissible evidence, which in the
present case is conspicuously absent. Needless to state that it is
for the Insurance Company to prove that the owner had
committed breach of the insurance policy and that the driver was
not holding a valid and effective driving license. However,
the insurance company has miserably failed to prove that the
driver of the vehicle in question was not having a valid
14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
and effective driving license at the time of the accident.
19. Hence, in view of the entire evidence on record, the
findings recorded by the learned Tribunal below with respect to
the driving license, being fake, are unsustainable in the eyes of
law. Once the appellant-Insurance Company has failed to prove
that the driving license of the driver of the vehicle in question was
invalid, then the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal below
to this effect deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Since the
vehicle in question was duly insured with the appellant-Insurance
Company, the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the
amount of compensation to the claimants.
20. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company next contended that while computing the income of the
deceased, the learned Tribunal below had committed an illegality
in calculating the future prospects of the deceased and in allowing
parental and filial consortium to the claimants. Admittedly, at the
time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 42 years. In
the Pariwar register, Ex. PW-1/E, the date of birth of the
deceased has been recorded as 20.02.1974. The accident took
place on 11.06.2016, thus the deceased was about 42 years of
age at the time of the accident.
21. The perusal of the award shows that the learned
15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
Tribunal below had added 30% of the actual income of the
deceased towards future prospects. In National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC
680, a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
while determining the income, in case the deceased was self-
employed or on a fixed salary and between 40 to 50 years of age,
an addition of 25 % of the established income to the income of
the deceased towards future prospects should be made. Paras
59.3 and 59.4 of the said judgment read as follows:-
“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.”
22. In the instant case, as observed earlier, at the time of
accident, the deceased was about 42 years of age and was self
employed. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in Pranay Sethi‘s case (supra), an addition of 25% of the
monthly income of the deceased has to be made towards future
prospects instead of 30%, as added wrongly by the learned
16 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
Tribunal below.
23. Thus, after fixing the notional monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.9,000/- and adding 25% of the monthly income
towards future prospects, the amount comes to Rs.11,250/-
(9,000+2,250 =11,250).
24. In Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Apex Court,
on the question of deduction towards the personal and living
expenses of the deceased held that, the personal and living
expenses of the deceased should be deducted from his monthly
income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependents. Where the
deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased should be one-third where the number
of dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth where the
number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth
where the number of dependent family members exceeds 6. 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.
25. Since there were four dependents upon the income of
the deceased, 1/4th of his income is required to be deducted
towards personal and living expenses. After the said deduction,
17 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
the contribution to family comes out to Rs.8,438/- per month.
26. In Sarla Verma‘s case (supra), it has further been held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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, 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. The relevant
portion of the aforesaid judgment is as under:-
’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 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, 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.”
27. Thus, by applying the multiplier of ’14’ as per the
settled law, the compensation under the head, loss of
dependency is re-fixed as Rs.8,438/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.14,17,584/-.
28. Now coming to the last aspect, i.e., the conventional
18 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )heads. The ld. Counsel for the insurance company contended
that while passing the impugned award, the learned Tribunal
below had committed a grave error in allowing the parental and
filial consortium to the claimants. In the impugned award, the
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal
consortium, Rs.15,000/- as filial consortium and Rs.80,000/-
towards parental consortium. The amount under the conventional
heads has been standardized by the Hon’ble Apex Court at
Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate; Rs.40,000/- towards loss of ‘filial
consortium’ and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. In
Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram
alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 Supreme
Court Cases 130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in
legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which
encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and
“filial consortium”. Relevant paras of the same read as under:-
“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 general defined
as rights pertaining to the relationship of a
husband-wife which allows compensation o the
surviving spouse for loss of “company, society,
19 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )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 taining”.
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 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 love, affection, care and
companionship of the deceased child.”
29. Since “consortium” is a compendious term which
encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and
“filial consortium” as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Magma‘s case (supra), the learned Tribunal below had not
committed any error in allowing the parental and filial consortium
to the claimants 2 to 4. Accordingly, by re-fixing the amount under
the head, loss of dependency” at Rs.14,17,584/-,the total amount
of compensation is worked out as under:-
Head Amount
(i) Loss of dependency Rs.14,17,584/-
(ii) Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
(iii) Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
20 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
(iv) Spousal consortium Rs.40,000/- (payable to petitioner
No. 1)
(v) Parental consortium Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each
payable to petitioners No. 2 and 3)
(vi) Filial consortium Rs.40,000/-(payable to petitioner
No.4)
Total compensation awarded Rs.16,07,584/-
30. This Court, however, does not see any reason to
interfere with the rate of interest awarded on the amount of
compensation.
31. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made
here-in-above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
the appeals filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle in
question, i.e., FA0 No. 277 and 166 of 2023, respectively, are
allowed and the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance
Company, i.e., FAO No. 141 of 2023, is partly allowed. The
impugned award stands modified and the petitioners-claimants
are held entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs.16,07,584/-
alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization of the entire amount of compensation. The
owner of the vehicle in question, is held liable to pay the amount
of compensation and consequently, the appellant-insurance
company will indemnify the owner of the vehicle towards the
compensation payable to the claimants since the vehicle in
21 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:15816 )
question was duly insured at the time of accident. The remaining
terms of the impugned award, shall remain the same. The
appeals stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the
pending applications, if any.
( Sushil Kukreja )
Judge
24th December, 2024
(virender)