Jasbir Singh and Anr v. Surjit Singh and Ors

IN T

Jasbir Singh and Surjit Singh &

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

For SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The enhancement of Tribunal, Ludhi Section 166 of t awarded a comp

2.

Sin being adverted t SUBMISSIONS

3.

Lea assessed by th appellant furthe income of wife

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA Da d Another

VERSUS others

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for r. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for r. Ravinder Arora, Advocate r respondent No.3 – Insurance C -.- HARMA, J. (Oral)

e present appeal has been prefe f compensation awarded by th iana (for short, 'the Tribunal') v the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, w pensation of Rs.96,000/- alongwi nce the factum of the accident to for the sake of brevity. S OF LEARNED COUNSELS arned counsel for the claimant e learned Tribunal is on the er contends that the learned Tri as Rs.2,100/- per month. He fur

JAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-1292-2006 (O&M) ate of Decision : 08.11.2024

....Appellants

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA the appellants. Co. erred by the claimant/appellant he learned Motor Accident Cla vide award dated 11.10.2005 un whereby the claimant/appellant w ith interest @ 7.5% per annum. is not in dispute, the facts are S FOR THE PARTIES ts-appellants contends that amo lower side. Learned counsel ibunal has erred in taking mont rther submits that the deceased w

for ims nder were not ount for thly

house-wife and submission, he h 2014, United In January 15, 201 New India Ass contend that the coordinate ben deceased house submits that the as per settled law been awarded a consortium is o housewife in th prays that the enhanced.

4.

Per the learned Trib of compensation

5.

I h record of this ca

6.

In relying upon th Bihar and other

d income must be taken as R has placed reliance on the judgm ndia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Su 4, and FAO No. 2772 of 2015, surance Co. Ltd. and Others e monthly income should be as ches have consistently adjudi ewife in motor vehicle accide e learned Tribunal has wrongly t w. Moreover, no amount for fut and even the amount awarded on the lower side. He, therefo he present case be taken as Rs.9 present appeal be allowed and r contra, learned for the responde bunal vide award dated 11.10.20 n. Therefore, he prays for dismis have heard learned counsel for ase. FAO No. 218 of 2014, a co-or he principles laid down in Lata rs [2001(4) RCR(Civil) 673], ma

s.9,000/-PM. In support of ments rendered in FAO No. 218 ube Singh and Others, decided Tarsem Singh and Others v. M , decided on August 22, 2017, ssessed at Rs.9,000. In both cas icated the monthly income o ent cases at Rs.9,000. He furt taken multiplier of 5 instead of ture prospects and loss of estate for funeral expenses and loss ore, prays that the income of 9,000/-per month . Therefore, d the amount of compensation ent-Insurance Company argues t 005 has rightly assessed the amo ssal of the present appeal. the parties and perused the wh rdinate Bench of this Court, wh a Wadhwa and others v. State ade the following observations:-

his 8 of d on M/s , to ses, f a ther 18, has s of , he be that ount hole hile

"Le not app inc inc exp Sta eva acc con doe ma in con wor

7.

I 2014, particular against the orde Similarly, the S same fate. Cons further dispute r

earned counsel for the appell ticing that the income of a proximately Rs.8000/- the Tri come of the deceased as Rs.900 come had been taken a deduct penses. This argument is flawed ate of Bihar and others reported e accident had taken place in 1 aluated the contribution of a hou cident in the present case to nsidered opinion to tag a hous es not do complete justice to nager. Keeping in view the laps the case of Lata Wadhwa a nclusion that a house wife is so rker it would not be unreasona e deceased in the present case at reason for reducing the quantum find sufficient reason to follow rly as I am informed that the S er in this case has been dismisse SLP filed in the other case cited sequently, these orders have atta regarding their binding nature.

lant has argued that even wh a skilled worker in 2012 w ibunal has wrongly assessed 00/-. As per him once the notio tion had to be made for perso d. In Lata Wadhwa and others d as 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 673 (wh 1981) the Hon'ble Supreme Co use wife at Rs.3000/-per month. T ok place after 23 years. In se wife as a 'skilled worker' alo her multifarious role as a ho se of 23 years between the accid nd the present accident and omething more than a mere skil able to estimate the contribution a higher figure. On the whole I m." w the judgment in FAO No. 218 Special Leave Petition (SLP) fi ed by the Hon'ble Supreme Co by the appellants has also met ained finality, leaving no scope

hile was onal onal s v. here ourt The my one ome dent my lled n of see 8 of filed ourt.

8.

It i as a homemak parameters, enc and the upkeep monetary terms In assessing com which would oth of the above, it deceased – Cha award requires i

9.

A p was granted for the learned Trib the settled law. funeral expense award requires i SETTLED LAW

10.

Ho Transport Corp down the law o are as under:- "30 per

is imperative to acknowledge th ker. Her contributions exten compassing household managem of familial stability. These serv , are invaluable to the functioni mpensation, the court must facto herwise necessitate considerable t is just and reasonable to dete aranjit Kaur, housewife at Rs. interference by this Court. perusal of the award further show future prospects and for loss of bunal has erred in applying the m A perusal of the award further es and for loss of consortium is indulgence of this Court. W ON COMPENSATION n'ble Supreme Court in the poration and Another [(2009) 6 on assessment of compensation

¶0Though in some cases the rsonal and living expenses is

he multifaceted role of a housew d beyond measurable econom ment, child care, emotional supp vices, though often unrecognized ing and well-being of a househo r in this indispensable contributi e expenditure if outsourced. In vi ermine the monthly income of .9,000/- per month, therefore, ws that no amount of compensat f estate. Award further reveals t multiplier of 5 instead of 18, as shows that the amount granted on the lower side. Therefore, case of Sarla Verma Vs. De 6 Supreme Court Cases 121], l and the relevant paras of the sa e deduction to be made towa calculated on the basis of un

wife mic port, d in old. ion, iew tion that per for elhi laid ame ards

ind stan dec was dep num whe

¶31par bac exp mo get par to e and be con bec be only

dicated in Trilok Chandra, th ndardised deductions. Having cisions of this Court, we are of s married, the deduction toward e deceased, should be one-thir pendent family members is 2 t mber of dependent family memb ere the number of dependent fam Where the deceased was a ba rents, the deduction follows a chelors, normally, 50% is d penses, because it is assumed th re on himself. Even otherwise, tting married in a short time, in rent(s) and siblings is likely to b evidence to the contrary, the fath d will not be considered as a de considered as a dependant. In ntrary, brothers and sisters will cause they will either be indepe dependent on the father.

¶2Thus even if the deceased is ly d the mother would be consid

he general practice is to ap a considered several subsequ f the view that where the decea ds personal and living expenses rd (1/3rd) where the number to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where bers is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5 mily members exceeds six. achelor and the claimants are different principle. In regard deducted as personal and liv hat a bachelor would tend to sp there is also the possibility of which event the contribution to be cut drastically. Further, subj her is likely to have his own inco ependant and the mother alone w In the absence of evidence to l not be considered as dependa endent and earning, or married, survived by parents and siblin dered to be a dependant, and 5

pply uent ased s of r of 5th) d to ving end f his ject ome will nts, , or ngs, 50%

wou and of t as you exp wil *

¶42men Sus an 25 y to 3 for uni to 6

11.

Ho Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sections 166, 1 aspects:-

(A) mu

uld be treated as the personal a d 50% as the contribution to the the bachelor is large and depend in a case where he has a wido unger non-earning sisters or b penses may be restricted to one-t ll be taken as two-third.

*

* We therefore hold that the m ntioned in Column (4) of the t samma Thomas³, Trilok Chandr operative multiplier of 18 (for th years), reduced by one unit for e 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 yea 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 4 its for every five years, that is, M 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years n'ble Supreme Court in the case y Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 63-A and 168 of the Motor Ve ) Deduction of personal an ultiplicand;

and living expenses of the bache e family. However, where the fam dent on the income of the deceas owed mother and large number brothers, his personal and liv third and contribution to the fam *

*

* multiplier to be used should be table above (prepared by apply ra and Charlie), which starts w he age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 every five years, that is M-17 for ars, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M 46 to 50 years, then reduced by M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for and M-5 for 66 to 70 years. e of National Insurance Comp C 680] has clarified the law un ehicles Act, 1988, on the follow nd living expenses to determ

elor mily sed, r of ving mily e as ying with 1 to r 26 M-14 two r 56 pany nder wing

(B)

(C)

(D) esta

(E) age The

) Selection of multiplier depen ) Age of deceased on basis for ) Reasonable figures on con ate, loss of consortium and funer ) Future prospects for all cate es: with permanent job; self-emp e relevant portion of the judgmen "52. As far as the conventi it difficult to agree with the granted Rs.25,000 towards towards loss of consortium care and guidance for minor of care and minor children d to Santosh Devi, it does n conventional and traditional determined on percentage b acceptable criterion. Unlike heads have to be quantified reasonable foundation. Ther that price index, fall in ba many a field have to be n oblivious to the same. Ther aspect. Otherwise, there determination of the same an

nding on age of deceased; r applying multiplier; nventional heads, namely, loss ral expenses, with escalation; egories of persons and for differ ployed or fixed salary. nt is reproduced as under:- ional heads are concerned, we f e view expressed in Rajesh². It s funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,0 and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss r children. The head relating to l does not exist. Though Rajesh ref not seem to follow the same. T l heads, needless to say, cannot basis because that would not be e determination of income, the s d. Any quantification must hav re can be no dispute over the f nk interest, escalation of rates noticed. The court cannot rem re has been a thumb rule in t will be extreme difficulty nd unless the thumb rule is appli

of rent find has s of loss fers The t be e an said ve a fact s in main this in ied,

there will be immense variat as a consequence of which, and courts are likely to be seemly to fix reasonable sum figures on conventional hea consortium and funeral Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 revisiting the said heads is revisit should not be fact-cen that it would be condign quantified should be enhan three years and the enhance in a span of three years. W that will bring in consistency *

*

59.3. While determining th actual salary to the incom prospects, where the deceas below the age of 40 years, sh be 30%, if the age of the dec In case the deceased was bet addition should be 15%. actual salary less tax.

tion lacking any kind of consiste the orders passed by the tribun e unguided. Therefore, we think ms. It seems to us that reasona ads, namely, loss of estate, loss expenses should be Rs.15,0 respectively. The principle s an acceptable principle. But ntric or quantum-centric. We th that the amount that we h nced on percentage basis in ev ement should be at the rate of 1 We are disposed to hold so beca y in respect of those heads. *

*

* he income, an addition of 50% e of the deceased towards fut sed had a permanent job and w hould be made. The addition sho ceased was between 40 to 50 yea tween the age of 50 to 60 years, Actual salary should be read

ncy nals k it able s of 000, of hink ave very 0% ause % of ture was ould ars.

12.

Ho Company Limi 130] after cons

59.4. In case the deceased salary, an addition of 40% o the warrant where the decea An addition of 25% where th 40 to 50 years and 10% wh age of 50 to 60 years shou method of computation. Th income minus the tax compon

59.5. For determination of t personal and living expenses be guided by paras 30 to 3 reproduced hereinbefore.

59.6. The selection of multi Table in Sarla Verma¹ read w

59.7. The age of the decease the multiplier.

59.8. Reasonable figures on estate, loss of consortium a 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 1 amounts should be enhanced years." n'ble Supreme Court in the ca ited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuh sidering Sarla Verma (supra

was self-employed (or) on a fix of the established income should ased was below the age of 40 yea he deceased was between the age here the deceased was between uld be regarded as the necess he established income means nent. the multiplicand, the deduction s, the tribunals and the courts sh 32 of Sarla Verma which we h iplier shall be as indicated in with para 42 of that judgment. ed should be the basis for apply conventional heads, namely, loss and funeral expenses should be 15,000 respectively. The afores d at the rate of 10% in every th se of Magma General Insura hru Ram & Others [2018(18) S a) and Pranay Sethi (Supra)

ixed d be ars. e of sary for hall ave ying s of Rs said hree nce CC

settled the law r as under:-

regarding consortium. Relevan "21. A Constitution Bench o with the various heads und awarded in a death case. consortium. In legal parlanc term which encompasses consortium", and "filial con would include the company solace and affection of the family. With respect to a relations with the deceased sp

21.1. Spousal consortium pertaining to the relationshi compensation to the surviv society, cooperation, affecti conjugal relation".

21.2. Parental consortium premature death of a pa protection, affection, soc training".

21.3. Filial consortium i compensation in the case of accident leading to the death

nt paras of the same are reprodu of this Court in Pranay Sethi² de der which compensation is to One of these heads is loss ce, "consortium" is a compendi "spousal consortium", "paren nsortium". The right to consorti y, care, help, comfort, guidan deceased, which is a loss to spouse, it would include sex spouse. is generally defined as rig ip of a husband-wife which allo ving spouse for loss of "compa ion, and aid of the other in ev is granted to the child upon rent, for loss of "parental a ciety, discipline, guidance a is the right of the parents f an accidental death of a child. h of a child causes great shock a

uced ealt be of ious ntal ium nce, his xual ghts ows any, very aid, and to An

agony to the parents and fa agony for a parent is to los Children are valued for the and their role in the family u

¶22Consortium is a special about the status and worth jurisdictions world-over hav child's consortium far exc compensation awarded in th jurisdictions therefore pe compensation under loss of c The amount awarded to the of the love, affection, care a child.

¶23The Motor Vehicles Act providing relief to the vict genuine claims. In case wh child, or unmarried son or d be awarded loss of conso consortium. Parental conso lose their parents in motor few High Courts have awa However, there was no clari

amily of the deceased. The grea se their child during their lifeti eir love, affection, companions unit. l prism reflecting changing nor h of actual relationships. Mod ve recognised that the value o ceeds the economic value of e case of the death of a child. M ermit parents to be award consortium on the death of a ch parents is a compensation for l and companionship of the decea is a beneficial legislation aimed ims or their families, in cases here a parent has lost their mi daughter, the parents are entitled ortium under the head of fi rtium is awarded to children w vehicle accidents under the Act arded compensation on this cou ity with respect to the principles

test me. ship rms dern of a Most ded hild. loss ased d at s of inor d to filial who t. A unt.

CONCLUSION

13.

In above referred

11.10.2005 is m enhanced compe Sr. No. M F D ex T M A L F L P S

which compensation could consortium.

¶24The amount of compensa will be governed by the pri under "loss of consortium" a present case, we deem it ap the sister of the deceased, an of filial consortium. N view of the law laid down by to judgments, the present app modified accordingly. The ap ensation as per the calculations m Heads Monthly Income R uture prospects @40% R Deduction towards personal xpenditure 1/3rd R Total Income R Multiplier Annual Dependency R Loss of Estate R uneral Expenses R Loss of Consortium arental : Rs.48,000/- x 1 pousal : Rs.48,000/- x 1 R

d be awarded on loss of fi ation to be awarded as consorti inciples of awarding compensat as laid down in Pranay Sethi². In ppropriate to award the father a n amount of Rs 40,000 each for l the Hon'ble Supreme Court in peal is allowed. The award da ppellants-claimants are entitled made here-under:-Compensation Awarded Rs.9,000/-Rs.3,600/-(9000 x 40%) Rs.4,200/-[1/3 of 12600] Rs.8400/-(12600-4200) Rs.18,14,400/- (8400 x 12 x 5) Rs.18,000/-Rs.18,000/-Rs.96,000/-

ilial ium tion and loss ated

T

A T

E

14.

So Court in Dara S and R.Valli and Supreme Cour 9% per annum o the date of its re

15.

The compensation a from the date of directed to disb the accounts of

11.10.2005. Th details to the Tri

16.

As no.5 in favour o holding a valid was directed to insurance comp deposit the enha and liberty is gra

Total Compensation R Amount Awarded by the Tribunal R Enhanced amount R far as the interest part is conce Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shy d Others VS. Tamil Nadu State rt Cases 107, the appellants-cla on the enhanced amount from th ealization. e Insurance Company is directed longwith interest with the Tribu f receipt of certified copy of this burse the enhanced amount of co both the claimants/appellants as e claimants/appellants are direc ibunal. per award dated 11.10.2005, t of the insurance company, since driving licence at the time of deposit the compensation, but pany. In view of the same, the anced amount of compensation a anted to recover the same.

Rs.19,46,400/- Rs.96,000/- Rs.18,50,400/- erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31 e Transport Corporation (2022 aimants are granted the interest he date of filing of claim petition d to deposit the enhanced amoun unal within a period of two mon s judgment. The Tribunal is furt ompensation along with interes per ratio settled in the award da cted to furnish their bank acco the learned Tribunal decided is e driver (respondent No.1) was accident. The insurance comp recovery rights were given to e insurance company is directed alongwith interest with the Tribu

eme 2) 5 t @ n till nt of nths ther t in ated ount ssue not any d to

17.

In

18.07.2024, the scheduled fees t the date of recei

18.

Dis

19.

Pen

November 8, 20 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

view of the order passed in e insurance company is hereby to Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocat ipt of copy of this judgment. sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st

(S

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

n FAO No.1682 of 2007 da y directed to deposit the curr te within a period of ten days fr tand disposed of. SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

ated rent