Shakuntla Devi and Ors v. Satish Kumar Andors

IN T

Smt. Shakuntla Satish Kumar an

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

for SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The against the awar Tribunal, Kuruk Vehicles Act, 1 was dismissed. BRIEF FACTS

2.

The on 20.03.2005 G.T.Road while meantime respo HR-07H/0508, r to which, Gian injuries includin

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA Da Devi and Others

VERSUS nd Another

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for r. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate r. Satpal Dhamija and Mr. Deepa the respondent – Insurance Co. -.- HARMA, J. (Oral)

e present appeal has been pre rd dated 04.01.2007 passed by t kshetra (for short, 'the Tribunal 988, whereby, the claim petitio S OF THE CASE e brief facts of the case as ment at about 6.30 PM Gian Chan e riding on bicycle at normal ondent No.1 while driving mo rashly and negligently came and n Chand fell down and receive ng fracture and lateron died. It

JAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-2822-2007 (O&M) ate of Decision : 21.11.2024

....Appellants

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA the appellants. ak Goyat, Advocates

ferred by the claimants/appella the learned Motor Accident Clai l') under Section 166 of the Mo on filed by the claimants/appella tioned in the claim petition are t nd (since deceased) was cross speed as per traffic rules. In tor cycle bearing registration N d hit the bicycle of Gian Chand, ed multiple, serious and griev has been alleged that the accid

ants ims otor ants that sing No. due vous

was caused due respondent No.1

3.

Up accident/compen

4.

Fro issues:-

i) dec mo

ii) pet

iii) driv

iv)

5.

Aft record, claimants/appell grant of compen SUBMISSIONS

6.

The the ground that t dismissed. He

e to sole rash and negligent dr 1 and a criminal case was also go on notice, respondents appea nsation. om the pleadings of the parties, Whether the accident in ceased Gian Chand was caused d otor cycle No.HR-07H/0508, on .1, as alleged? OPP If issue No.1 is prove, to w titioners are entitled to and from Whether respondent No.1 w ving licence on the alleged date o Relief. ter taking into consideration th learned Tribunal dismissed lants. Hence the claimants/appe nsation. S OF LEARNED COUNSELS e learned counsel for the claiman the FIR was lodged after a perio further contends that while d

riving of the said motor cycle ot registered against him. ared and denied the factum the Tribunal framed the follow question resulting into death due to rash and negligent driving n the part of its driver, respond what amount of compensation, whom? OPP was holding a valid and effect of accident? OPR he pleadings and the evidence claim petition of ellants filed the present appeal S FOR THE PARTIES nts-appellants contends that only d of 07 days, the claim petition w dismissing the claim petition

by of wing of g of dent tive on for y on

Tribunal has no Singh. He, ther

7.

Per the learned Trib petition filed by present appeal.

8.

I h record of this ca

9.

The under:- "8. pet pet Ho com 07H who grie inju resp acc tha He G.T

ot taken into consideration the e refore, prays that the present app r contra, learned for the responde bunal vide award dated 04.01.20 y the claimants/appellants. There have heard learned counsel for ase. e relevant portion of the award

To begin with it has been a titioners that Gian Chand husba titioner Nos.2 to 5 was employed use Karnal road Pipli. On 20.3 ming back after his duties. He w H/0508 being driven by Satish o was crossing the G.T.road. H evous injuries and also suffere uries. The accident had take pondent no.1. Shiv Inder Pal cident. He has been examined as at he had witnessed the acciden was coming from the side of S T.road. In the meantime Mo

evidence of PW-2 – Shiv Inder peal be allowed. ent-Insurance Company argues t 007 has rightly dismissed the cla efore, he prays for dismissal of the parties and perused the wh dated 04.01.2007 is reproduced argued by learned counsel for and of petitioner No.1 and father d as Lineman in UHBVN at Pow

3.2005 at about 6.30 P.M. he w was on bicycle. Motorcycle no.H Kumar came and hit Gian Cha He fell down and received multi ed fracture. He succumbed to ken place due to negligence was the eye witness of the s s PW2. He has specifically depo t on 20.3.2005 at about 6.30 P Sector 2-3 and was going towa otorcycle make Splender bear

Pal that aim hole d as r of wer was HR-iple his of said osed P.M. ards

reg

¶3mo into G.T Cha his driv Am shif has Ex. infe cau bee bee Kur und

¶9has fals tak

gistration no. HR-07H/0508 was Respondent no.1 driver of the torcycle in rash and negligent o the bicycle of Gian Chand wh T.road and was going towards and cyclist fell down on the road body. On enquiry the cyclist tol ver of the motorcycle told his na mbulance came there from Um fted injured in the Ambulance. s placed on record copy of post P1, in which the cause of death fection of lungs which were anti-use death in normal course of en placed on record as Ex.P3. S en facing trial under Sections rukshetra under F.I.R.No.87 da der section 173 Cr.P.C. has been To rebut the arguments of le s been argued by learned couns accident had taken place betw d the bicycle of Gian Chand de sely implicated in order to get fa ken place it was not due to rash a

s coming from the side of Sector e said motorcycle was driving manner. He struck his motorcy ho was coming from Umri side Pipli. As a result of impact, G d and sustained multiple injuries ld his name as Gian Chand and ame as Satish Kumar. A governm ri side and was got stopped. Learned counsel for the claima t-mortem report of Gian Chand has been shown as head injury a -mortem in nature and sufficien nature. The copy of FIR has a Satish Kumar respondent no.1 279, 304-A IPC in the court ated 26.3.2005. The copy of rep n placed on record as Ex.P4. earned counsel for the claimants sel for respondents no.1 and 2 t een motorcycle no. HR-07H/05 eceased. Respondent no.1 has b alse claim. If at all the accident h and negligent driving of respond

r 2-ycle e on Gian s on ment He ants d as t to also has t at port s, it that een had

no. neg

¶10has acc HR Kum

¶11IPC Sin was G.T neg cyc for PW aris afte Am Inju Fro adm

1 rather it was Gian Chand h gligently.

The learned counsel for res s argued that a concocted story h cident between cycle of Gian Ch R-07H/0508 allegedly being dr mar. The accident has been alle e FIR has been registered on 26. d an after thought version.

Perusal of record shows tha C was registered on 26.3.2005 ngh, which is to the effect that on s going on intersection of sector T.road, a motorcycle was comin gligent manner. He hit the cycl clist and the motorcyclist fell do the claimants has examined sa W2. He is the only eye witness o sen in the statement of the alleg er the accident, he had shifted inj mbulance. After that he did no ured Gian Chand was shifted t om where he was referred to P.G mitted for seven days and was

himself who was driving the cy spondent no.3 insurance compa has been formulated with regard hand deceased and motorcycle driven by respondent no.1 Sa eged on 20.3.2005 at 6.30 P.M. a .3.2005, which shows the concoc at FIR under sections 279, 337, 3 on the statement of Shiv Inder n 20.3.2005 at around 6.30 P.M. r 2/3 on foot. When he reached n ng from side of sector 2 in rash a le coming from opposite side. T own on the road. Learned coun aid eye witness Shiv Inder Pal of the said accident. Suspicion ged eye witness. As per his vers njured Gian Chand in a governm ot lodge the FIR with the pol to L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshe G.I.Chandigarh. There he remain referred back to L.N.J.P.Hospi

ycle any d to no. tish cted Pal M. he near The nsel l as has sion ment lice. tra. ned ital,

Kur to A doc aga who on stag had inju had rec him of S was had eye Gia him is n bot wh del may Gia

rukshetra. The family members Apna Hospital, Kurukshetra inst ctors of Apna Hospital did not ain being taken to L.N.J.P. Hos ole of this story, it is not appare

20.3.2005 till 11.4.2005 whether ge or not. His statement was no d gone to Civil Hospital from ured was referred to P.G.I. Cha d gone to PGI Chandigarh and cord statement. Again on 24.3.2 m unfit to record statement. It wa Shiv Inder Pal Singh was record s not aware of the manner of t d suffered injuries. In his statem e witness has stated that on 26 an Chand injured to know about m on the way and he got recorde not apparent on the record as to ther to give statement before th ich Gian Chand had received in lay in recording the FIR. It see y be case of hit and run. Some an Chand and after hitting he m

of Gian Chand deceased took h tead of L.N.J.P. Hospital. When admit him in the hospital, he w spital and on the way he died. ent as to whether after the accid r Gian Chand was conscious at a ot recorded at any stage. The po m where it was informed that andigarh. On 21.3.2005 the po d the doctors declared him unfi 2005 the doctors of P.G.I. decla as only on 26.3.2005 that statem ded. Till 26.3.2005, the prosecut the accident in which Gian Cha ment, Shiv Inder Pal Singh alleg

6.3.2005 he was going to house t his condition, the police party m ed his statement before the police why the alleged eye witness did e police to narrate the acciden njuries. There is no explanation ms to be an after thought story vehicle might have hit the cycle might have run away. At this sta

him was . In dent any lice lice t to ared ment tion ged e of met e. It not t in n of y. It e of

not Sin Sat sum was no. per suc arg tha pol was Shi sing

¶20con has Cha to h ma dep

d that too after 7 days of the acc t been registered and here com ngh as an eye witness. The FIR w tish Kumar respondent no.1. The mmoned. It shows that the vehicl s taken into police custody on 19 1 being accused was also form rtinent to mention here that on 1 ccumbed to his injuries and h guments, it has been averred by at Shiv Inder Pal Singh eye witn lice on 20.3.2005 itself and it w s not registered till 26.3.2005, ye iv Inder Pal Singh the alleged gle word that his statement

3.2005 but the FIR was not rec e counsel for the petitioners is try e FIR. It is not apparent on t nscious even after the accident. s stated that he had asked the inj and. It is strange that he did no hospital. At the time of recording de telephonic call to the residen posing as PW2 he has stated tha

cident, it was realized that FIR h mes introduction of Shiv Inder was registered on 26.3.2005 aga e file of criminal case has also b le i.e. motorcycle no. HR-07H/05

9.4.2005. Satish Kumar respond mally arrested on 19.4.2005. I

11.4.2005 Gian Chand injured h had died. Though at the time learned counsel for the petition ness had made statement before was the fault of police that the F et in his statement dated 26.3.20 eye witness has not stated eve was recorded by the police corded till 26.3.2005. It seems t rying to fill up the gap in record the record that Gian Chand w Shiv Inder Pal Singh eye witn jured and he told this name as G ot bother to accompany the inju g the FIR he has stated that he h nce of Gian Chand; whereas wh at he had not made any telepho

had Pal inst een dent It is had e of ners FIR 005, n a on that ding was ness Gian ured had hile

cal of S now by exa in pet intr

¶12Sha wit susp FIR Cha pro res mo P.M

¶13reg pro pro wit

ll at the house of Gian Chand de Shiv Inder Pal the alleged eye w. In the present case Satish Ku the respondents. It creates dou e motorcycle of Satish Kumar r amined presumably to avoid cros the story put forward by the titioners and the police. Shiv roduced as eye witness after seve

There is no other evidence akuntla Devi is widow of Gian C tness of the accident. The testimo spicious merely on the ground o R without any reasonable explan and deceased had received injur ove that the injuries were suffer ult of rash and negligent drivin torcycle no. HR-07H/0508 mak M.

Though there is no requir gistered but in the present days omptly. Though, FIR is not ne osecution or claimants, yet it is fi th regard to happening of any a

eceased. In criminal case statem witness has not been recorded umar driver has not been examin ubt on the manner of accident w respondent no.1. He has not b ss-examination. It all creates do e eye witness at the instance Inder Pal Singh seems to be en days of the accident. e of the said accident. PW1 S Chand deceased. She is not the ony of PW2 Shiv Inder Pal Singh of delay of six days in lodging nation. It is not disputed that G ries but the claimants have failed red by Gian Chand deceased, a ng of respondent no.1 while driv ke Splender on 20.3.2005 at 6 rement of law that FIR must scenario the FIR has to be lodg cessary to be recorded for eit first information report to the po accident. Since the FIR was lodg

ment till ned with een oubt e of an Smt. eye h is Gian d to as a ving

6.30 be dged ther lice

afte to a

¶14lea dec res driv 07H fav ANALYSIS OF

10.

A p Satish Kumar re A perusal of the furnished by po injury and ches and sufficient to

11.

Ex. Vs. Satish Kum Police Station S

12.

Ex. Shakuntala Dev stated the factu information reg Civil Hospital, K

er six days unexplained delay, a authenticity of the version of alle

In view of foregoing discu rned counsel for the claimants h ceased has suffered injuries and ult of accident which had taken ving of respondent no.1 while d H/0508. Hence, this issue is dec vour of respondents." F THE RECORD perusal of the record shows th espondent No.1 under Sections e post mortem report Ex.P/1 sho olice accident has been written. t infection i.e infection of lungs o cause death in normal course of .P/4 is the copy of report under S mar in FIR No.87, dated 26.03.20 adar Thanesar. .P/5 is the copy of site plan w vi (wife of deceased Gian Chan um of accident and she furth arding this accident through tele Kurukshetra, from where her hu

a suspicion has crept in with reg eged eye witness. ussion, it is hereby observed t has failed to prove that Gian Cha later on succumbed to injuries a n place due to rash and neglig driving motorcycle bearing no. H cided against the claimants and hat FIR No.87 was lodged aga 279, 337, 338 IPC on 26.03.20 ows that in the column informat The cause of death is due to h s which are ante mortem in nat f nature. Section 173 Cr.P.C in the case St 005 under Section 279, 304/A IP which shows the place of accide nd) was examined as PW/1. S her stated that she has receiv ephone and thereafter they reach usband was got transferred to P

gard that as a gent HR-d in inst

¶005tion head ture tate PC, ent. She ved hed PGI,

Chandigarh. He PGI referred hi shifting from on

13.

Shi witnesses of the the rash and neg he was going to away from the Pipli at 6.55 PM accident. He fu Sh.Bhim Sain, A

14.

Dr. was examined a Chand. She stat

15.

E.H record pertainin 304-A IPC of P facing trial. CONCLUSION

16.

Fro proved. Learned FIR was not lod PW-2 is suspic accident Gian C

e remained admitted there for sev im back to L.N.J.P Hospital, K ne hospital to another, he died on iv Inder Pal Singh was examined e said accident. He deposed the gligent driving of respondent No inform the police. The Police S place of accident, when police M on 20.03.2005 and got recorde urther named the police officers, ASI and 2-3 constables. . Sarah Aggarwal, Medical Offi as PW-3. She conducted post m ted that it was a case of road side H.C Duli Chand was examined ng to FIR No.87, dated 26.03.20 Police Station Thanesar which N om the above analysis of the d Tribunal has dismissed the cla dged promptly and further that cious and further on the groun Chand was conscious at any stag

ven days. Thereafter the doctors Kurukshetra. During the course n the way on 11.04.2005. d as PW-2, who is stated to be e e factum of accident and regard o.1. He stated that after the accid Station was one and a half kilome gypsi met him near the bus st ed his statement with respect to that police party was consisting ficer L.N.J.P Hospital, Kurukshe mortem on the dead body of G e accident. as PW-5, who brought summon 005 under Sections 279, 337, 3 proves that respondent No.1 w record, the factum of accident aim petition on the ground that statement of Shiv Inder Pal Sin nd that whether from the date ge or not. Further on 21.03.2005

s of e of eye-ding dent eter g of etra Gian ned 338, was t is ngh, e of 5 he

had gone to PG

24.03.2005, the

17.

The claim petition appreciating the was admitted an Tribunal dismis this Court.

18.

Wi evidence of h Consequently th documented evi

19.

The judgment of Ho Insurance Co. L has been held as " con imp Trip

¶2pet dec

GI and doctors declare him unf doctors of PGI declared him unf e reasoning given by the learned is not acceptable to this Co e series of circumstances at tha nd referred from one hospital to sed the claim petition. Therefor th respect to determination of ospital admissions, the decea his Court shall adjudicate the co dence on the record. e claimants are also entitled f on'ble the Apex Court in a case Ltd vs. Maran Chandra Das an s under:- Having heard learned co nsiderable length, we do not fin pugned judgment dated 7.1.20 ipura. The question of law sough titioner does not arise for cons ceased son of the respondent(s) m d he remained hospitalised at

fit to record statement. Again fit to record the statement. d Tribunal in dismissing the pres ourt. Instead of examining a at point of time when the decea other, which is undisputed, learn re, the award requires indulgence compensation, the award conta ased's earning and his age ompensation in accordance with for pain and suffering in view e of Divisional Manager, Orien nd others, 2023 ACJ 864 wherei ounsel for the petitioner at nd any ground to interfere with 21 passed by the High Court ht to be raised on behalf of sideration for the reason that met with an accident on 20.10.20 Kolkata where multiple surger

on sent ased ned e of ains etc. w of ntal in it t a t of

wer suc

¶3par alm The dur

20.

Reg valid and effec Tribunal decide favour of respon SETTLED LAW

21.

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

re performed on him. Howe ccumbed to injuries on 13.9.2016 In the peculiar facts and cir rents witnessed the pain, agon most one year, the compensation e head of pain and suffering, can e parents themselves also suffer ring this entire period" garding Issue No.3 i.e. Whethe ctive driving licence on the al ed the issue against respondent ndent No.1 (Driver). 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 deceased, should be one-thir

ever, he could not survive a

¶6rcumstances of this case, where ny and suffering of their son awarded by the High Court, un not be said to be without any ba red unbearable pain every mom er respondent No.1 was holding lleged date of accident, learn t No.2-Insurance Company and 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 rd (1/3rd) where the number

for nder asis. ment g a ned d in elhi laid ame ards nits pply uent ased s of

dep num whe

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

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

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

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

22.

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

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

(D) esta

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; ) Selection of multiplier depen ) Age of deceased on basis for ) Reasonable figures on con ate, loss of consortium and funer

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 nding on age of deceased; r applying multiplier; nventional heads, namely, loss ral expenses, with escalation;

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

(E) age The

) 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 there will be immense variat as a consequence of which, and courts are likely to be seemly to fix reasonable sum

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 tion lacking any kind of consiste the orders passed by the tribun e unguided. Therefore, we think ms. It seems to us that reasona

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

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.

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

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 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 of 000, of hink ave very 0% ause % of ture was ould ars. d as ixed d be ars.

23.

Ho Company Limi 130] after cons settled the law r as under:-

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 regarding consortium. Relevan "21. A Constitution Bench o with the various heads und awarded in a death case.

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) 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

sary for hall ave ying s of Rs said hree nce CC has uced ealt be

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 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

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 amily of the deceased. The grea se their child during their lifeti eir love, affection, companions unit.

ious ntal ium nce, his xual ghts ows any, very aid, to An test me.

¶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 which compensation could consortium.

¶24The amount of compensa will be governed by the pri under "loss of consortium" a

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 d be awarded on loss of fi ation to be awarded as consorti inciples of awarding compensat as laid down in Pranay Sethi². In

rms dern of a Most ded hild. loss ased d at s of inor d to filial who t. A unt. s on ilial ium

CONCLUSION

24.

In above referred

04.01.2007 is se per the calculati Sr. No. M F D ex T M A L F P L P S

T

25.

So Court in Dara S

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 et aside. The appellants-claima ions made here-under:- Heads Monthly Income uture prospects @30% Deduction towards personal xpenditure (1/4rd) Total Income Multiplier Annual Dependency Loss of Estate uneral Expenses ain and Suffering Loss of Consortium arental : Rs.48,000/- x 2 pousal : Rs.48,000/- Total Compensation far as the interest part is conce Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shy

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 ants are entitled to compensation Compensation Awarded Rs.10,739/- Rs.3,221/- (40% of 10,) Rs.3,470/- [1/4 of 13960] Rs.10,470/- Rs.16,33,320/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.2,40,000/- Rs.19,59,320/- erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31

loss ated n as d

and R.Valli and Supreme Cour 9% per annum o the date of its re

26.

In amount of comp date of receipt disburse the am claimants/appell furnish their ban

27.

In

18.07.2024, the scheduled fees t from the date of

28.

Dis

29.

Pen

November 21, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

d Others VS. Tamil Nadu State rt Cases 107, the appellants-cla on the enhanced amount from th ealization. view of the above, Insurance C pensation with the Tribunal with of copy of this judgment. Th mount of compensation along lants in equal share. The cla nk account details to the Tribuna view of the order passed in e insurance company is hereby to Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advoc f receipt of copy of this judgmen sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st 2024

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

e Transport Corporation (2022 aimants are granted the interest he date of filing of claim petition Company is directed to deposit hin a period of two months from he Tribunal is further directed with interest in the account aimants/appellants are directed al. n FAO No.1682 of 2007 da y directed to disburse the curr cate within a period of twenty d nt. tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

2) 5 t @ n till d to of d to ated rent