Fatta and Others v. Abdul Rahim and Ors

IN

Fatta and others

Abdul Rahim an

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr Mr for

Mr for

SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The enhancement of Tribunal, Gurga Section 163-A o the claimants/ap interest @ 6% p FACTS NOT IN

2.

Bri Unus and Ash registration No Unus and Ash M village Palla, th parked in the m

THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA -.-

Re Da

FA s

Versus nd others

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r.Shivam Sharma, Advocate for r. Ashish Gupta, Advocate the appellants. r. Sanjeev Pabbi, Advocate the respondent-Insurance Comp -.-

HARMA, J. e instant appeal has been prefer f compensation awarded by th aon (for short, 'the Tribunal') v of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ppellants were awarded compen per annum. N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that o Mohd was going to Nuh from RJ-02-8-M/6819 being driven b Mohd were pillon riders. At abou en a tractor trolley bearing regis middle of the road. When they NJAB AND HARYANA ARH served on: 20.09.2024 ate of Decision : 01.10.2024 AO-230-2007 (O&M)

....Appellants

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA

pany. rred by the claimants/appellants he learned Motor Accident Clai vide award dated 01.09.2006 un 8 (for short, 'MACT Act'), wher nsation of Rs.1,01,000/- along w on 04.03.2004, Shehjad alongw m Taoru on motor cycle bear by him at moderate and slow spe ut 4.30 PM, when they reached n stration No.HR-27/8528, was fou were about to overtake the trac

for ims nder eby with with ring eed. near und

trolley, a labour seeing the labou iron plate was tractor trolley a Shehjad and As whereas Sirajud tractor trolley) h solely occurred

3.

Up the factum of co

4.

Fro issues:-

rer came from the side of the ro urer, Shehjad i.e., driver of the protruding out of the trolley an and also hit the labourer crossin sh Mohd, riders of motor cycl ddin sustained injuries. The Sa had not taken any precaution to due to the rash and negligent act on notice of the claim petition, ompensation. om the pleading of the parties, "1. Whether the accident negligent act of respondent trolley No. HR-27/8528 in th of rash and negligent drivin 8M/6819 by Shehjad (sin negligence of both the driver

(2) Whether the petitioners a so, to what amount and from

(3) Whether the respondent effective driving licence and and conditions of the ins Insurance Company.

(4) Relief" oad and tried to cross the road. motor cycle applied brakes, but nd the motor-cycle hit against ng the road. Due to which, Un le fell down and died on the s addik Khan (owner-cum-driver avoid the accident and the accid t of him. , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow in question took place due to no. 3 Saddiq in parking the trac he middle of the road or on acco ng of the motor cycle No. RJ-nce deceased) or on account rs, as alleged? OPP are entitled to get compensation m whom? OPP Saddiq was not holding valid d that the insured violated the ter surance policy, as alleged? O

On t an nus, spot r of dent nied wing ctor ount of n. If and rms

5.

Aft record, the lear interest @ 6% p for enhancemen SUBMISSIONS

6.

The amount assessed that the petition which only acci holding of the l extent of 50% i erroneously too contended that instead of 18 a contended that t also on lower sid

7.

Per the learned Trib of compensation

8.

I h record of this ca

9.

A p under Section 1 under this secti award, without vehicle involve

ter taking into consideration th rned Tribunal awarded compens per annum. Hence the claimants nt of compensation awarded by th S OF THE COUNSEL FOR T e learned counsel for the claim d by the learned Tribunal is on th was filed under Section 163-A o ident is to be proved and not th liability of the Insurance Compa is not sustainable. He further co ok income of the deceased as the learned Tribunal erroneou and no amount has been gran the compensation for loss of con de. r contra, learned for the responde bunal vide award dated 01.09.20 n. have heard learned counsel for ase. perusal of the award indicates 163-A of the Motor Vehicles A ion is determined by a structu requiring proof of negligence d in the accident. However, t he pleadings and the evidence sation of Rs.1,01,000/- along w s/appellants filed the present app he Tribunal. HE PARTIES mants-appellants contended that he lower side. He further conten of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 he negligence of the parties. Th any to pay the compensation to ontended that the learned Tribu Rs.2000/- per month. He furt usly applied the multiplier of ted for loss of estate. He furt nsortium and funeral expenses w ent-Insurance Company argues t 006 has rightly assessed the amo the parties and perused the wh that the claim petition was fi Act, 1988. Compensation gran ured forumula, constituting a fi by the driver or the owner of the Tribunal erred in applying

on with peal ded 8, in hus, unal ther ther was that ount hole filed nted

doctrine of cont by the Hon'ble Sunil Kumar, C MACT Act are be awarded with same is reprodu

tributory negligence. It is a wel Supreme Court in United India Civil Appeal No.9694 of 2013 that predicated on principle of no fa hout the necessity of proving neg ced as under:- "8. From the above disc compensation under Section structured formula is in the adjudication thereunder is requirement of any proof of the vehicle(s) involved in the Section 163A(2). Though the not specifically exclude a po on the negligence of the cla 140(4), to permit such defen and/or to understand the pro to be contemplating any such very legislative object behin the Act, namely, final compe on the basis of the structur where the claims of compens was taking an unduly long t 163A of the Act to permit t negligence would be to bring of the Act at par with the pr l settled legal principle, as affirm a Insurance Company Ltd. ver claims under Section 163-A of ault liability and compensation is gligence. The relevant extract of cussion, it is clear that grant 163-A of the Act on the basis of e nature of a final award and required to be made without a f negligence of the driver/owner e accident. This is made explicit e aforesaid section of the Act d ossible defence of the Insurer ba aimant as contemplated by Sect nce to be introduced by the Insu ovisions of Section 163A of the h situation would go contrary to nd introduction of Section 163A ensation within a limited time fra ed formula to overcome situati sation on the basis of fault liabi time. In fact, to understand Sect the Insurer to raise the defence g a proceeding under Section 16 roceeding under Section 166 of

med rsus s to f the t of f the any r of t by does ased tion urer Act A of ame ons ility tion e of 63A

In negligence is he

Fur Rs.2000/- per m in accordance w State of Haryan appropriate mul loss of estate an also on the lowe SETTLED LAW

10.

Ho Transport Corp down the law o are as under:- "30 per ind stan dec was

Act which would not only be the very legislative intention.

¶9For the aforesaid reasons, holding that in a proceeding not open for the Insurer to r the part of the victim." view of the above, the Tribu ereby set aside. rther, the Tribunal has assesse month. However, his income to b with the minimum wages presc na. Further the Tribunal applied ltiplier should be 13. Furthermo nd the sum awarded for loss of c er side. 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 dicated in Trilok Chandra, th ndardised deductions. Having cisions of this Court, we are of s married, the deduction toward e self-contradictory but also def . , we answer the question arising g under Section 163A of the Act i raise any defence of negligence unal's findings' qua contribut ed the income of the deceased be assessed as Rs.2250/- per mo cribed for unskilled workers in d a multiplier of 15, however, ore, no amount has been granted consortium and funeral expense 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 he general practice is to ap a considered several subsequ f the view that where the decea ds personal and living expenses

feat g by it is e on tory d at onth for es is elhi laid ame ards nits pply uent ased

dep num whe

¶31par bac exp mo get par to e and be con bec be only wou and of t as you

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 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 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 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

r of 5th) d to ving end f his ject ome will nts, , or ngs, 50% elor mily sed, r of

exp wil *

¶42men Sus an 25 y to 3 for uni to 6

11.

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

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

(D) esta

(E) age The

penses may be restricted to one-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; ) 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 -third andcontribution 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 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:-

mily e as ying with 1 to r 26 M-14 two r 56 pany nder wing mine of

"52. As far as the conventi it difficult toagree with the granted Rs.25,000 towards towards loss of consortium care and guidance for minor of care and minor children d to SantoshDevi, it does no 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 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 ional heads are concerned, we f 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 ot 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 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

find has s of loss fers The t be e an said e a fact s in main this in ied, ncy nals k it able s of 000, of

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 salaryto the income 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%. Act salary less tax.

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 necessarymethod of compu means the income minus thet

59.5. For determination of t personal and living expenses be guided by paras 30 to 3 reproduced hereinbefore. 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, tual salary should be read as act 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 s should be regarded as utation. The established inco tax component. the multiplicand, the deduction s, the tribunals and the courts sh 32 of Sarla Verma⁴ which we h

ave very 0% ause % of ture was ould ars. tual xed d be ars. e of ome for hall

¶12Insuranc Others [2 Pranay S paras of th

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

59.7. The age of the decease themultiplier.

59.8. Reasonable figures on estate, loss of consortium a 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 1 amounts should be enhanced years." Hon'ble Supreme Court in ce Company Limited Vs. Na 2018(18) SCC 130] after consi Sethi (Supra)has settled the law he same are reproduced as under "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 therelationship 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 n the case of Magma Gene anu Ram alias Chuhru Ram idering Sarla Verma(supra) w regarding consortium. Relev r:- 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 p of a husband-wife which allo

ying s of Rs said hree eral & and vant ealt be of ious ntal ium nce, his xual ghts

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 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 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 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 of 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

any, very aid, and to An and test me. ship rms dern of a Most ded hild. loss ased d at

CONCLUSION

13.

In above referred

01.09.2006 is enhanced compe Sr. No. M D ex T

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 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 Deduction towards pers xpenditure Total Income 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 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 ofRs 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.2250/- sonal Rs.750/- [1/3 of (2250)] Rs.1500/- (2250-750)

inor d to ilial who t. A unt. s on ilial ium tion and loss ated d to d

4. M A L F L P S T

A

E

14.

So Court in Dara S and R.Valli and Supreme Cour per annum on th date of its realiz

15.

The compensation al from today. The compensation al per ratio settled directed to furni

16.

Pen

October 01, 202 A.Kaundal

Whether s

Whether r

Multiplier Annual Dependency Loss of Estate uneral Expenses Loss of Consortium arental : Rs.48,000/- x 4 pousal : Rs. 48,000/-x1 Total Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribu Enhanced amount far as the interest part is conce Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shy d Others VS. Tamil Nandu State rt Cases 107, the appellant-claim he enhanced amount from the da zation. e Insurance Company is directed long with interest with the Tribu e Tribunal is further directed to long with interest in the accoun d in the award dated 01.09.20 ish the bank account details to th nding applications, if any, also st

(SU

speaking/non-speaking : Speakin reportable

: Yes/No Rs.2,34,000 /- (1500x12x13) Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.2,40,000/- Rs.5,10,000/- nal Rs.1,01,000/- Rs.4,09,000/- erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31 te Transport Corporation (2022 mant is granted the interest @ ate of filing of claim petition till d to deposit the enhanced amoun unal within a period of two mon o disburse the enhanced amount nts of all the claimants/appellants

¶006The claimants/appellants he Tribunal. tand disposed of. UDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ng

eme 2) 5 9% nt of nths t of s as