(O&M) New India Issurancea Co.Ltd v. Satwinder Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur

FAO-2426-2007 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection 41-CII-2007 and FAO-2426-2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.11.2024 New India Assurance co. Ltd.  ……Appellant Versus Satwinder Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur and others …Respondents CORAM:  HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA **** Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No. 2426-2007 Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 5/claimants/cross objectors. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

¶1Appeal and cross objections, as noticed above, are being disposed of by this common judgment, having arisen out of the impugned award dated

17.03.2007   passed   by   the   learned   Tribunal,   Ropar,   whereby   the claimants/respondent No. 1 to 5 were awarded compensation to tune of Rs.15,30,000/- along with interest @9% per annum. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

¶2The brief facts of the case are that on 28.02.2005, when Gurmukh Singh (since deceased) was on his way from village Kotbala to village Chhajja on his scooter bearing registration No. PB-12-B-6603. When he reached in the area of village Gazipur at about 2:15 P.M, a bus bearing registration No. PB-13-FAO-2426-2007 2

J-6027   driven   by   Baljinder   Singh   came   from   Kiratpur   side   rashly   and negligently, struck against the scooter of Gurmukh Singh (since deceased). As a result of which, Gurmukh Singh (since deceased) sustained multiple and grievous injuries and died on the spot. His post mortem was conducted in Civil Hospital, Ropar.

3.  Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents-driver, owner and Insurance Company appeared and denied the factum of accident/compensation.

¶4From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1)  Whether Gurmukh Singh had died in a motor vehicle accident because of rash and negligent driving of bus bearing No. PB-13-J-6027 by its driver respondent No. 1 on 28.02.2005? OPP 2) Whether the claimants are the legal representatives the legal of deceased Gurmukh Singh and are entitled to get compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3) Whether   driver   of   Bus   No.PB-13-J-6027   was   not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect? OPR 4)  Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? 5) Whether deceased Gurmukh Singh was not holding a valid and  effective  driving licence at  the time  of accident? If so, its effect? OPR 6) Relief."

¶5After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.15,30,000/- FAO-2426-2007 3

alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Hence the claimants/cross objectors filed the cross objections for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal that the Tribunal has wrongly granted the compensation to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 5. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

¶6Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the claim petition has wrongly been allowed and the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were not entitled to compensation. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶7Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   respondent   No.   1   to   5/cross objectors contends that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed and the cross objections filed by them, are liable to be allowed, as Gurmukh Singh (since deceased) was about 34 years of age and was working in Punjab Police as Constable. However, the learned Tribunal failed to include future prospects in its calculation. He further contends that the amount awarded for funeral expenses is on the lower side. He further submits that nothing has been awarded towards loss of estate and loss of consortium. Therefore, he prays that the present cross objections be allowed and compensation should be enhanced as per latest law.

8.  I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case. FAO-2426-2007 4

FAO No. 2426-2007

¶9So far as appeal filed by the Insurance Company is concerned, I do not find any merit in the same, since the factum of the accident is proved and a detailed award dated 17.03.2007 was passed by the Tribunal. X Objection No. 41-CII-2007

¶10A perusal of the record indicates that the deceased was working with Punjab Police as Constable and was getting the salary of Rs.10,878/- per month, out of which an amount of Rs.2530/- was being deducted towards G.P.F. and G.I.S and his carry home salary was Rs.8348/- per month.   Since, the deceased was an income tax assessee and after deducting the tax payable, his income comes out to 15107/-, the net annual income of the deceased comes out to Rs.1,15,429/-.  Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 9619/- per month (Rs.1,15,429?12). However,  the amount awarded for funeral expenses is on the lower side. Moreover, no amount was awarded towards future prospects, loss of consortium and loss of estate. Therefore, the award requires indulgence by this Court. SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

¶11Hon'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 applyGaurav Arora FAO-2426-2007 ,

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 dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (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 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.

¶32Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only d the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% FAO-2426-2007 6

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. * * * * * *

¶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 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. .(. AonE1le   Supreme  <ourt   in   the   case   o%    National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 3'2017) 16 0CC 6908 has clari%ied the law under Sections .**# .*4+A and .*7 o% the !otor Vehicles Act# .577# on the %ollowin2 aspects + FAO-2426-2007 7

:A; Geduction o% personal and li$in2 eCpenses to determine multiplicandH :=; Selection o% multiplier dependin2 on a2e o% deceasedH :<; A2e o% deceased on 1asis %or appl3in2 multiplierH :G; Reasona1le %i2ures on con$entional heads# namel3# loss o% estate# loss o% consortium and %uneral eCpenses# with escalationH :I; &uture   prospects   %or   all   cate2ories   o%   persons   and   %or di%%erent a2es  with permanent jo1H sel%+emplo3ed or %iCed salar3. "he rele$ant portion o% the jud2ment is reproduced as under + F52. 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 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. FAO-2426-2007 9

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. * * * * *

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 FAO-2426-2007 4

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 be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years." FAO-2426-2007 10

.4.  AonE1le Supreme <ourt in the case o%  (%:7% G $ r%; I$s5r%$!  Co76%$< /#7#" & =s- N%$5 R%7 %;#%s C>5>r5 R%7 & O"> rs 32019'19) 0CC 1108 a%ter considerin2  0%r;% = r7% 's56r%) and Pr%$%<   0 ">#   '056r%)  has   settled   the   law   re2ardin2   consortium. Rele$ant paras o% 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". FAO-2426-2007 11

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.

¶22Consortium 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.

¶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 FAO-2426-2007 12

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 the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium. CONCLUSION

¶14In view of the above, the cross objections filed by claimants/cross objectors  is allowed and the appeal filed by  the Insurance Company  is dismissed. The cross objectos-claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation, as per the calculations made here-under:- Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded No. 1 Monthly Income   Rs.9619/- 2 Future prospects @ 50% Rs.4809/- (50% of 9619) 3 Deduction   towards   personal Rs.3607/- (14428 X 1/4) expenditure 1/4th

¶4Total Income  Rs.10821/- (14428-3607) 4 Multiplier  16 5 Annual Dependency  Rs.20,77,632/- (10821X12X16) 6 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/- 7 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/- FAO-2426-2007 13

8 Loss of Consortium Rs.2,40,000/-Parental    :     Rs. 48,000/-x3 Spousal    :     Rs. 48,000/-x1 Filail        :     Rs. 48,000/-x1 Total Compensation Rs.23,53,632/-Amount Awarded by the  Rs.15,30,000/-Tribunal Enhanced amount Rs.8,23,632/-

¶15So 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 cross objectors-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.

¶16The  Insurance Company-respondent 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/cross objectors, as per the ratio settled by the Tribunal in its award dated  17.03.2007. The claimants/cross objectors are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

¶17Disposed off accordingly.

¶18Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. November 05, 2024                      (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) G Arora                     JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking