Roshan Lal and Ors v. Mohsm and Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 205 FAO-1740-2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 19, 2024 Roshan Lal and others ......Appellants Vs. Mohsm and  others ......Respondents CORAM:  HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent-Insurance company. ---- S  UDEEPTI SHARMA  J. (ORAL) None has put in appearance on behalf of the Insurance Company.

¶2This is an old matter pertaining to the year 2006 but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Insurance Company.

¶3Previously 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.

¶4On the asking of the Court, Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

¶5Learned counsel for the appellants has handed over copy of the paper-book alongwith relevant record to the learned counsel for respondent No.3- Insurance Company.

¶6In view of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007, the Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate, the counsel engaged by this Court in the present case.

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

28.09.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for   short,   'the   Tribunal')   vide   which   the   claim   petition   filed   by   the appellants/claimants,  who are the family members of the deceased, was dismissed. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

¶2The brief facts of the case are that on 10.6.2002, Smt.Bimla Devi (deceased)   alongwith   her   family   members   was   returning   to   her  Village Shahzadpur   from   Haridawar,   in   Maruti   car   bearing   registration   No. HR-04A-951 being driven by its driver on correct left hand side of the road. When they reached near Hindon river bridge, ahead of village Gagalheri towards Saharanpur side and had already covered the bridge and reached the main road i.e. Haridwar Saharanpur road, at about 3.00 p.m, a truck bearing registration No.UP-20-F-1706, driven by respondent No.1-Mohsm in a very rash   and   negligent   manner   came   from   the   opposite   direction   i.e.   from Saharanpur side and by bringing the truck on wrong side of the road hit against the car due to which all the occupants of the car received injuries and were taken to Tara Wati Hospital, Saharanpur in a car. Smt. Bimla Devi was also taken to the Tarawati Hospital, Bajoria Road, Saharanpur and from there she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where she succumbed to the injuries on

16.6.2002.

¶3Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied the factum of accident/compensation.

¶4From   the   pleadings   of   the   parties,   the  Tribunal   framed   the following issues:- 1) Whether the death of Bimla Devi took place due to rash and   negligent   driving   of   truck   No.UP-20-F-1706   by respondent No.1? OPP 2) Whether the claimants are the only legal representatives of the deceased and entitled to compensation. If so, how much and from whom? OPP. 3) Whether respondent. No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident ? OPR. 4) Whether the Tribunal at Ambala does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the petition? OPR-3. 5) Relief.

¶5After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record,   the   learned   Tribunal   dismissed   the   claim-petition.   Hence   the claimants/appellants filed the present appeal for grant of compensation. SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS

6.   The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants was dismissed on the ground of delay of 02 days in lodging the FIR. He further contends that when  the truck reached at the police station infor#ation  as (iven   hen no state#ent  as (iven to the police %y +2.0).2002 re(ardin( the involve#ent of truc1 in the accident. ii8 neither the driver of truc1 nor the o ner thereof  as eAa#ined and they   ere   proceeded   a(ainst  ex parte vide   order   dated   2).04.2004. 'herefore,   he   prays   that   the   present   petition   %e   allo ed   and co#pensation %e (ranted to the appellants9clai#ants. -. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent ar(ues on the lines of the a ard and contends that the a ard has ri(htly %een dis#issed %y the 3d. 'rial &ourt. ,.  " have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the  hole record of this case.

¶4=elevant portion of the a ard passed %y the 3d. 'ri%unal is reproduced as under:! "8. In order to prove this issue, Vinod Kumar, one of the claimants and son of the deceased, appeared as PW-1 and deposed that on 10.6.2002, he alongwith his father Roshan Lal, mother Smt. Bimla Devi, his 'Bhabhi' Prem Lata and his child Akhil was returning towards Village Shahzadpur from Haridwar in maruti car No. HR-04A-051, which was being driven by Banta Ram driver at a moderate speed. He further deposed that at about 3.00 Ρ.Μ. they crossed Hindon river bridge when a truck bearing No. UP-20-F-1706, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction. He further deposed that after seeing the truck their driver had taken the car on the 'kacha' portion of the road, however the driver of the truck hit against the driver side of the car and the truck could be stopped after covering about ten paces from the place of accident. However, his statement was recorded on 12.6.2002. In the cross-examination, he deposed that name of driver of the truck was toldSonia Arora to him by the police in the police station. He did not know about the name of owner of the truck. He deposed that he had not told his lawyer the name of driver of the truck at the time of filing of this petition. He further deposed that he did not give statement to the police before 12.6.2002 and that the truck was already present in the police station when he reached there.

¶9Claimants also examined Banta Ram, driver of the car, who appeared as PW-2 and corroborated the version of one of the claimants Vinod Kumar. However, in the cross-examination, he deposed that the truck driver had disclosed his name to him and that thereafter he fled away after leaving the truck at the place of accident.

¶10Claimants have also tendered in evidence copy of site plan of the alleged place of accident as Ex. PA prepared by the Investigating Officer. copy of charge-sheet Ex.PB, copy of FIR Ex.PC, copy of inquest report Ex PD and copy of post-mortem report Ex.PE.

¶11It has been argued by learned counsel for the claimants that evidence adduced by the claimants on the point remains unrebutted and hence, it is argued that there is nothing as to why the same be disbelieved.

¶12On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for respondent no3. Insurance Company that no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of one of the claimants and a procured witness and that in fact truck No. UP-20-F-1706 was not at all involved in the accident and that the truck was later on falsely implicated in this case by the claimants in collusion F with the police and respondents no.1 and 2 just to claim compensation from the Insurance Company. It has also been argued that there is two days delay in lodging the FIR and that the said delay has not at all been explained by the claimants.

¶13It was for the claimants to prove by adducing cogent evidence that the accident was cause due to rash and negligent 2024.10.04 09:41 driving of truck No. UP-20-F-1706 being driven by Mohsin respondent no.1. On the point, we are having deposition of one of the claimants Vinod Kumar, who was also allegedly travelling in the car involved in the accident and driver of the car namely Banta Ram PW-2. However, perusal of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.PB, on which reliance has been placed by the claimants, shows that Banta Ram has not been cited as one of the witnesses by the police. If Banta Ram was driving the car at the time of alleged accident, there is nothing as to why he has not been cited as a witness by the police and as to why he did not give any statement to the police. It shows that Banta Ram is a procured witness of the claimants.

¶14The accident allegedly took place at about 3.00 P.M. on

10.6.2002 and immediately thereafter the injured was removed to a private hospital at Saharanpur. However First Information Report was lodged with Police Station, Saharanpur, on 12.6.2002 at 5.00 P.M. Vinod Kumar PW-1 simply deposed that he did not give any statement to the police before 12.6.2002. He no where explained as to why he did not lodge report with the police on the same day. Further according to him the truck was already present in the police station when he reached there. He did not explain even as to how the truck reached the police station when he did not give statement to the police before 12.6.2002 regarding involvement of the truck in the accident. According to him, even name of driver of the truck was told to him by the police in the police station. On the other hand, Banta Ram, alleged driver of the car, PW-2 has deposed that driver of the truck had fled away after leaving the truck at the place of accident. He further deposed that driver of the truck had himself disclosed his name to him as Mohsin Khan. Hence, it is also not explainable that when the driver of the truck had left the truck at the place of accident as has been deposed by Banta Ram PW-2, as to why report was not lodged about the accident with the police on the same day.

¶15Some material documents have also been withheld by the 2024.10.04 09:41 claimants from the court. Copy of memo, vide which the truck was taken into possession by the police has not been produced. Hence, claimants have failed to prove as to from where and when the truck was taken into possession by the police. Claimants have also not placed on record copy of mechanic report of the truck to show as to whether any damage was caused to the truck or not. As per case of the claimants, it was "head-on-collision" between car and the truck. Hence, if the truck was involved in the accident, some damage must have been caused to the truck. Withholding of the said documents only goes to show that the truck was not involved in the accident and the same was falsely implicated lateron by the claimants in collusion with the police and respondents no.1 and 2.

¶16It may also be mentioned here that the claimants have given address of respondent no.2, owner of the truck, as resident of Mohalla Jattan, Bijnaur, Distt. Bijnaur. Statement was also given by learned counsel for the claimants before my learned predecessor on 25.2.2003 that he had noted down the address of respondent no.2 from the copy of policy of insurance, as summons were received with the report that address was incomplete and however, perusal of copy of policy of insurance Ex.RA shows that address of owner of the truck has been mentioned as "Care of Saral Motor & Gen Finance, A-128 TP Nagar, Meerut". Summons were not got served on the address of respondent no.2 as mentioned in Ex.RA. Rather service was got effected by publication with incorrect address of respondent no.2 by counsel for the claimants. One of the claimants when appeared as PW-1 deposed that he had not disclosed the name of driver and owner of the truck involved in the accident to his counsel at the time of filing of this petition. Hence, this fact also creates doubt in the veracity of case of the claimants that truck No. UP-20-F-1706 was involved in the accident.

¶17In view of my above discussion, I am of the view that there is force in the argument of learned counsel for respondent no.3 Insurance Company that truck No. UP-20-F-1706 was not 2024.10.04 09:41 involved in the accident and that the same was falsely involved in this case by the claimants in collusion with the police and respondents no.1 and 2. The collusion is to the extent that neither respondent no.1 nor respondent no.2 appeared to contest the petition. Even written statement was not filed.

¶18Hence, claimants have failed to prove that the accident was caused due to involvement of truck No. UP-20-F-1706 being driven by Mohsm respondent no.1. Rather in view of aforementioned facts, this Tribunal is having no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that truck No. UP-20-F-1706 has been falsely involved in this case by the claimants in collusion with the respondents no.1 and 2 and the police just to claim compensation from the Insurance Company as the truck was insured with respondent no.3 Insurance Company on the date of alleged accident. This issue accordingly, stands decided against the claimants and in favour of respondent no.3." +0. A perusal of the record sho s that the o ner and driver i.e. respondents $o.+ and 2 did not appear to contest the petition and they  ere proceeded a(ainst ex parte vide order dated 2).04.2004. ++. 'he evidence %rou(ht on record as per the clai#ants  as BA.PA hich  is  site  plan  of  the  alle(ed  place of occurrence prepared  %y  the "nvesti(atin( /fficer, report under Section +-* &r.P.&. BA.P:, &opy of ."= BA. P&, copy of "ntiuest =eport BA.PD and copy of post!#orte# report BA. PB. 'he evidence   adduced   %y   the   appellants9clai#ants   re#ained   unre%utted.   'he reasonin( (iven %y the 3d. 'ri%unal re(ardin( delay of 2 days in lod(in( of the ."= for dis#issin( of the clai# petition is not accepta%le to this &ourt in vie of la  laid do n %y <onC%le the Supre#e &ourt in Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others, 2011(4) SCC 693. +2. .urther after perusin( report under Section +-* &r.P.&. BA. P:, I attest to the aclceuraarcyn aendd 'ri%unal o%served that :anta =a#  as drivin( the car at the ti#e of alleged accident and he should have been cited as one of the witnesses by the police. When the factum of accident is proved, in such kind of cases wherein Banta Ram has been examined as PW-2, who narrated the whole incident of the accident and his testimony could not be shaken in his cross examination.

¶13Further reasoning given by Ld. Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition is that as per the case of the claimants, it was "head-on-collusion" between car and the truck and some damage should have caused to the truck as well. There was no document to show that there was damage to the truck.

¶14A perusal of the record shows the factum of accident which is proved by the examination of the witnesses. The record shows that the evidence with respect to treatment of deceased from Tarawati Hospital Mark A, Mark B, Mark C and Mark D, site plan Ex.PA, charge-sheet Ex.PB, copy of the FIR Ex. PC, police investigation report Ex.PD and copy of post mortem report Ex.PE. All these documents proves the factum of accident and the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle who never came forward as his own witness for his examination and was proceed against ex parte.

¶15So far as the delay of 02 days in lodging the FIR is concerned, Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   has   settled   the   law   in   the   case   of  Ravi   Vs. Badrinarayan and others, 2011(4) SCC 693, wherein it has been held that delay in lodging of FIR should not be treated as fatal for motor accident claim proceedings, if the claimant is able to demonstrate satisfactorily and with cogent reasons for such delay. The relevant para is reproduced as under:- "20. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities I attest to the accuracy and occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinised more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground.

¶21The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons." +). "n vie  of a%ove referred to jud(#ent of <onC%le the ApeA &ourt, it is a settled la  that even if there is delay in lod(in( of ."=, the clai# cannot %e rejected. +-. /n the touchstone of hearina%ove discussed findin(s and judicial precedent, the a ard dated 2,.04.2002 passed %y 3d. 'ri%unal, A#%ala stands vitiated %y a co#plete a%sence of judicial application of #ind. )ETT0ED 0A8 ON COMPEN)ATION +,. <onC%le Supre#e &ourt in the case of  Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 9(200.) 6 ):*-!+! C":-  Ca&!& 121;, laid do n the la  on assess#ent of co#pensation and the relevant paras of the sa#e are as under:! 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 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 2024.10.04 09:41 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 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. +4. <onC%le Supre#e &ourt in the case of   National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 9(2017) 16 )CC 670; has clarified the la  under Sections +)), +)*!A and +), of the Motor 5ehicles Act, +4,,, on the follo in( aspects:! 6A8 Deduction of personal and livin( eApenses to deter#ine #ultiplicandF 6:8 Selection of #ultiplier dependin( on a(e of deceasedF 6&8 A(e of deceased on %asis for applyin( #ultiplierF 6D8 =easona%le fi(ures on conventional heads, na#ely, loss of estate, loss of consortiu# and funeral eApenses,  ith escalationF 6B8 .uture  prospects  for  all   cate(ories   of  persons   and   for different a(es:  ith per#anent jo%F self!e#ployed or fiAed salary. 'he relevant portion of the jud(#ent is reproduced as under:! 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 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. 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 2024.10.04 09:41 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 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."

¶20<onC%le Supre#e &ourt in the case of   National Insurance I attest to the acCcuoramcy apnadny Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 9(2017) 16 )CC 670; has clarified the la  under Sections +)), +)*!A and +), of the Motor 5ehicles Act, +4,,, on the follo in( aspects:! 6A8 Deduction of personal and livin( eApenses to deter#ine #ultiplicandF 6:8 Selection of #ultiplier dependin( on a(e of deceasedF 6&8 A(e of deceased on %asis for applyin( #ultiplierF 6D8 =easona%le fi(ures on conventional heads, na#ely, loss of estate, loss of consortiu# and funeral eApenses,  ith escalationF 6B8 .uture  prospects  for  all   cate(ories   of  persons   and   for different a(es:  ith per#anent jo%F self!e#ployed or fiAed salary. 'he relevant portion of the jud(#ent is reproduced as under:! 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 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. 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 ofSonia Arora 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 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 2024.10.04 09:41 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." 2+.  <onC%le   Supre#e   &ourt   in   the   case   of  Ma<+a   G!'!-a1 I'&:-a'$! C"+*a'= 0%+% !2 4&3 Na': Ra+ a1%a& C/:/-: Ra+ & O /!-& 92017(17) )CC 160;  after considerin(   )a-1a 4!-+a  (&:*-a)  and  P-a'a= )! /% ():*-a) has settled the la  re(ardin( consortiu#.  =elevant paras of the sa#e 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".

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 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.

¶24The 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

¶22In 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

28.09.2005 is set aside. The appellants-claimants are entitled to grant of compensation as per the calculations made here-under:- Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded No. 1 Monthly Income   Rs.2500/- 2 Future prospects @ 25% Rs.625/-(25% of Rs.2500/-) 3 Deduction   towards   personal Rs. 1042/- expenditure 1/3rd  [1/3 of (2500+625)]

¶4Total Income  Rs.2083/-(3125-1042) 4 Multiplier  13 5 Annual Dependency  Rs. 3,24,948/-( 2083 x 12 x 13) 6 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-7 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-8 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,44,000/-Parental  : Rs. 48,000/- x 2 Spousal :   Rs. 48,000/- x 1 Filial   : Total Compensation Rs.5,04,948/-

¶23So 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 amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.

¶24The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation alongwith interest with the Tribunal within a period of two 2024.10.04 09:41months from today. The claimant No.1 is entitled to receive the amount of compensation to the extent of 60% whereas the claimants No.2 and 3 are entitled to remaining amount of compensation in equal shares. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amount of compensation alongwith interest in the accounts of all the claimants/appellants. The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

¶25Before   parting   with   the   judgment,   this   Court   extends   its appreciation to Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate, for his able assistance to the Court in the present matter.

¶26Disposed off accordingly.

¶27Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE September 19, 2024 sonia arora Whether speaking/reasoned: Speaking