Saraswati and Anr v. Ishwar Singh and Others

FAO-1810-2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1810-2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 03, 2024 Saraswati and anr.      ......Appellants vs. Ishwar Singh and ors.             ......Respondents CORAM:  HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J  .

¶1This is an old matter pertaining to the year 2007 but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Insurance Company.

¶2Previously 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.

¶3On the asking of the Court, Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company. FAO-1810-2007 2

¶4Learned counsel for the appellant has handed over copy of the paper-book alongwith relevant record to the learned counsel for respondent- Insurance Company. FAO No. 1810-2007

¶1The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

03.01.2007 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, on account of death of their son namely Niraj in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on

06.06.2005.

¶2As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is 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

¶3  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.

¶4Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, 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. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5.  I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case. FAO-1810-2007 3

¶6The facts of the case are undisputed. The deceased was 16 years of age at the time of accident and was stated to be a brilliant student. This Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in law by applying ndthe 2  Schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to assess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15000/- per annum in the absence of any evidence of income of the deceased. Given that the claim was instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 , the Tribunal ought to have assessed the notional income in the light of the specific facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, keeping in mind that the deceased was 16 years old and a brilliant student.

¶7In such cases, there is no fixed or uniform formula for determining the income of a student where no tangible proof of earning is available on record. Consequently, while calculating the notional income, the Tribunal should have taken into account that the deceased was a young student of 16 years.

¶8The Hon'ble Supreme Court in  V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another (2014) 11 SCC 178  has considered the notional income of a student thstudying in 11  standard, who was injured in a road accident that took place in the year 2005 as Rs. 10,000/- per month. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking the notional income of the injured as Rs. 10,000/- per month had considered the fact that the injured was a brilliant student as she had secured first thrank in the 10   standard and was likely to have a better future in terms of educational career by acquiring a basic or master's degree in professional courses which could have gotten her a suitable public or private employment but on account of the permanent disablement she suffered due to injuries sustained by her in the accident, that opportunity is lost to her. FAO-1810-2007 ,

5.  A two C!dge 6ench of the Bon9)le S!pre"e Co!rt in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 254, spea2ing thro!gh C!stice R.M. 3odha, has held as !nder: "14. On completion of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from the prestigious institute like BIT, it can be reasonably assumed that he would have got a good job. The appellant has stated in his evidence that in the campus interview he was selected by Tata as well as Reliance Industries and was offered pay package of Rs.3,50,000 per annum. Even if that is not accepted for want of any evidence in support thereof, there would not have been any difficulty for him in getting some decent job in the private sector. Had he decided to join government service and got selected, he would have been put in the pay scale for Assistant Engineer and would have at least earned Rs. 60,000 per annum. Wherever he joined, he had a fair chance of some promotion and remote chance of some high position. But uncertainties of life cannot be ignored taking relevant factors into consideration. In our opinion, it is fair and reasonable to assess his future earnings at Rs. 60,000 per annum taking the salary and allowances payable to an Assistant Engineer in public employment as the basis. Since he suffered 70% permanent disability, the future earnings may be discounted by 30% and, accordingly, we estimate upon the facts that the multiplicand should be Rs.42,000 per annum." %'. A two C!dge 6ench of the Bon9)le S!pre"e Co!rt in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and another (2015) 2 SCC 180  spea2ing thro!gh C!stice 4. @opala @owda C., while assessing the FAO-1810-2007 1 co"pensation in the case of a %5 #ears old "edical st!dent, who was p!rs!ing his M66S co!rse )!t lost his life in a "otor vehic!lar accident, has held as !nder: "11. The deceased was a diligent and outstanding student of medicine who could have pursued his MD after his graduation and reached greater heights. Today, medical practice is one of the most sought after and rewarding professions. With the tremendous increase in demand for medical professionals, their salaries are also on the rise. Therefore, we have no doubt in ascertaining the future income of the deceased at Rs 25,000 p.m. i.e. Rs 3,00,000 p.a. Further, deducting 1/3rd of the annual income towards personal expenses as per Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deo Patodi [(2009) 13 SCC 123 : (2009) 5 SCC

(Civ) 29 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 963] and applying the appropriate multiplier of 13, keeping in mind the age of the parents of the deceased, as per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma case [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , we arrive at a total loss of dependency at Rs 26,00,000 [(Rs 3,00,000 minus 1/3 × Rs 3,00,000) × 13]." %%. A si"ilar iss!e ca"e !p for consideration )efore this Co!rt in a case of Savitri Devi and others vs. Balwan Singh and others, decided on

19.09.2024, wherein also the deceased  was %/ #ears of age at the ti"e of accident and this Co!rt too2 the notional inco"e < Rs.%',''';  per "onth while awarding co"pensation. In view of the >!dg"ents referred to a)ove, since in the instant case, the deceased was %/ #ears old st!dent at the ti"e of death and the accident too2 place in the #ear &''?, this Co!rt assess the notional inco"e 2024.12.1o7 f1 2t:h30e deceased as Rs.%',''';  per "onth. ,!rther the "!ltiplier of %* is to FAO-1810-2007 2 )e applied. The clai"ants are to )e awarded f!t!re prospects < +'=.  The clai"ants are to )e awarded the co"pensation !nder the conventional heads as well i.e loss of estate, loss of consorti!" etc. Therefore, the i"p!gned award reti!ires interference of this Co!rt. /ETT.ED .A3 ON COMPEN/ATION %&. Bon9)le S!pre"e Co!rt in the case of  Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 4(2005) 2 /67)e'e C 6)t Ca$e$ 1218, laid down the law on assess"ent of co"pensation and the relevant paras of the sa"e are as !nder: D30. 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 oneAthird (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, oneAfourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and oneAfifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

¶31Where 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 2024.12.17 12:30 getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the FAO-1810-2007 7 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.

¶32Thus 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 nonAearning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to oneAthird and contribution to the family will be taken as twoAthird. * * * * * *

¶42We 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 MA17 for 26 to 30 years, MA16 for 31 to 35 years, MA15 for 36 to 40 years, Gaurav Arora MA14 for 41 to 45 years, and MA13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced FAO-1810-2007 8 by two units for every five years, that is, MA11 for 51 to 55 years, MA 9 for 56 to 60 years, MA7 for 61 to 65 years and MA5 for 66 to 70 years. %1. Bon9)le S!pre"e Co!rt in the case of  National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 4(2017) 12 /CC 2808 has clarified the law !nder Sections %//, %/1 A and %/* of the Motor 4ehicles Act, %5**, on the following aspects: 7A: Ded!ction   of   personal   and   living   eApenses   to   deter"ine "!ltiplicandE 76: Selection of "!ltiplier depending on age of deceasedE 7C: Age of deceased on )asis for appl#ing "!ltiplierE 7D: Reasona)le fig!res on conventional heads, na"el#, loss of estate, loss of consorti!" and f!neral eApenses, with escalationE 7F: ,!t!re prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: with per"anent >o)E self e"plo#ed or fiAed salar#. The relevant portion of the >!dg"ent is reprod!ced as !nder: D52. 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 2024.12.17 12:30 not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of FAO-1810-2007 5 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 factAcentric or quantumAcentric. 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 2024.12.17 12:30 prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was FAO-1810-2007 10 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 selfAemployed (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 be enhanced at the rate of 10% in 2024.12.17 12:30 every three years." FAO-1810-2007 11 %+.  Bon9)le S!pre"e Co!rt in the case of  Ma9'a Ge%e)a: I%$6)a%"e C '7a%; .#'#te< =$0 Na%6 Ra' a:#a$ C>6>)6 Ra' & Ot>e)$ 42018(18) /CC 1*08 after considering  /a):a =e)'a ($67)a) and P)a%a; /et># (/67)a) has settled the law regarding consorti!".  Relevant paras of the sa"e are reprod!ced as !nder: "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 husbandAwife 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 2024.12.17 12:30 compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An FAO-1810-2007 12 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 worldAover 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.

¶23The 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 2024.12.17 12:30 consortium. FAO-1810-2007 13

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

¶15In 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

03.01.2007  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.10000/- 2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.4000/- (40% of 10000) 3 Deduction   towards   personal Rs.7000/- (14000 X ½) expenditure 1/2

¶4Total Income  Rs.7000 (14000-7000) 4 Multiplier  18 5 Annual Dependency  Rs.15,12,000/- (7000X12X18) 6 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/- 7 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/- 8 Loss of Consortium Rs.96000/- Filial   :     Rs. 48,000/-x2 Total Compensation Rs.16,44,000/- Deduction  Rs.2,40,000/- Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced amount Rs.14,04,000/- FAO-1810-2007 14

¶16So 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 enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.

¶17The Insurance Company-respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the accounts of the claimants/appellants. The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

¶18Further Insurance Company  is  directed  to  disburse the  current scheduled fees to  Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate, in view of the order dated

18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶19Before parting with the judgment, this Court extends its appreciation to Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate, for his able assistance to the Court in the present matter.

¶19Disposed off accordingly.

¶20Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE December 3, 2024 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/non-speaking :   Yes/No Whether reportable   :  YesGaurav Arora