Y.P.Bansal v. Rajinder Singh and Ors

IN T 103+393

Y.P.BANSAL

RAJINDER SI

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr for

SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The aside the award Tribunal, Feroz Vehicles Act, 1 Rs.5,60,000/- al FACTS NOT IN

2.

Bri p.m.Rachhpal S on his motor-c Rajinder Singh reached in the a from the side appellant-Y.P.B

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA

Cross-Ob FAO-208 Date of D

VS NGH AND OTHERS ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUD r. S.S.Hira, DAG, Punjab r.T.P.S. Makkar, Advocate the Cross-Objector-respondent N -.-

HARMA, J. e present appeal has been pref d dated 03.02.2006 passed by th zepur (for short, 'the Tribunal') 1988, whereby, the claimants long with interest @ 10% per ann N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are tha Singh (since deceased) was com ycle bearing No. PB-05-B-097 h on another motor-cycle bear area of Killa Chowk, Ferozepur of Hussainiwala head works Bansal in a rash and negligent JAB AND HARYANA ARH

bjections No.220-CII-2018 and 88-2006 (O&M)

Decision : 05.11.2024

....APPELLANT

....RESPONDENTS EEPTI SHARMA No.2. ferred by the appellant for sett he learned Motor Accident Cla ) under Section 166 of the Mo were awarded a compensation num. at on 24.04.1996 at about 5 ming back from village Gatti Ma

¶73He was followed by claim ring No. PB-F-9446. When th Cantt., a jeep No. PB-F-3102 ca which was being driven by manner. On coming near to

d ting ims otor n of

5.00 attar mant hey

motor-cycle of R blowing any hor road and sustain Ferozepur from Arora Neuro Ce at about 7.10 A Sections 279/33 claimant, where driving of offen

3.

Up the factum of co

4.

Fro issues:-

Rachhpal Singh, he struck the je rn, as a result of which, Rachhp ned multiple injuries. He was im where, he was referred to D.M enter, Ludhiana, where he succu A.M. A case F.I.R. 22 dated 37 IPC on the basis of the st ein, the role in the accident was a ding jeep by appellant. on notice of the claim petition, ompensation. om the pleading of the parties, "1. Whether Rachhpal Singh caused by Y.P.Bansal while and negligently on 24.04.199

¶2Whether the claimants are deceased? OPP.

¶3If issues No. 1 and 2 are entitled to compensation, if s OPP?

¶4Whether the claim pet necessary parties? OPP

¶5Relief." eep against the motor-cycle with pal Singh fell down on the metal mmediately taken to Civil Hospi M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana and then umbed to his injuries on 28.04.19

26.04.1996 was registered un tatement made by Rajinder Sin attributed due to rash and neglig , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow h died in motor vehicular accid driving jeep No. PBF-3102 ras 96? OPP. e the legal heirs of Rachhpal Sin proved, whether the claimants so to what amount and from who tition is bad for mis-joinder

hout lled ital, n to nder ngh gent nied wing dent shly ngh are om?

5.

Aft record, the learn alongwith intere SUBMISSIONS

6.

The being Governm driver and on th side, therefore, contends that th contends that th causing the acci

7.

The that the learned deceased toward

¶11He further c on lower side. H compensation as

8.

I h record of this ca

9.

A deciding issue N and held that th No.4 Dal Chan discloses that at rash and neglig

ter taking into consideration th rned Tribunal awarded compens est @ 10% per annum. Hence the S OF THE COUNSELS FOR T e learned State counsel for the ment Official was coming in the he way one motorcyclist struck a no fault can be found with t he motorcyclist was on fault an he learned tribunal has wrongly ident. He prays for allowing the a e learned counsel for the cross-d tribunal has wrongly deduct ds personal expenditure and had contends that the amount awarde He prays for allowing the cross o s per latest law and for dismissal have heard learned counsel for ase. perusal of the award indicates No.1 has taken into consideration here is no doubt that the challan nd driver of the offending jeep t the time of accident it was appe gent manner. Dal Chand was ac he pleadings and the evidence sation to the tune of Rs.5,60,00 e present appeal. THE PARTIES e appellant contends that appell e official jeep allotted to him w against the official jeep on its ri the driver of the jeep. He furt nd caused the accident. He furt y held the appellant responsible appeal. objector-respondent No.2 conte ed 1/3rd from the income of d applied multiplier of 7 instead ed towards remaining heads is a objections while awarding enhan l of the appeal. the parties and perused the wh s that the learned tribunal wh n each and every aspect of the c n was presented against respond p but F.I.R registered in the c ellant who was driving the jeep i cquitted in the case simply on

on 00/- lant with ight ther ther for nds d of also nced hole hile case dent case

ground that com the time of the Ex.R5 that Dal also observed in the award furth categorically de accident.

In v the appellant wa filed by the appe

10.

So Tribunal while of the deceased applying multip prospects and lo and funeral expe Court. SETTLED LAW

11.

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

mplainant had named the appella accident. There was nothing to Chand respondent was driving n the award that the main driver her shows that PW-4 who was eposed that the appellant was view of above there is no infirm as held responsible for causing t ellant is dismissed. far as cross objections are conce awarding amount of compensat d as Rs.10,000/-. However, the plier of 7 instead of 11. Further oss of estate and that the amou enses is also on lower side. Ther 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 ant to be at the wheel of the jeep show in the judgment of acqui the jeep at the relevant time. I of the jeep was on leave. Perusa s eye witness of the accident driving the jeep at the time mity in the award to the extent t the accident and as such the app erned, it is observed that the learn tion has correctly taken the inco learned Tribunal fell in error wh no amount was granted for fut unt awarded for loss of consorti refore, it requires indulgence of t 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

p at ittal It is al of has of that peal ned ome hile ture ium this elhi laid ame ards nits

stan dec was dep num whe

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

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

¶2Thus even if the deceased is ly d the mother would be consid uld be treated as the personal a d 50% as the contribution to the a considered several subsequ f the view that where the decea ds personal and living expenses rd (1/3rd) where the number to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where bers is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5 mily members exceeds six. achelor and the claimants are different principle. In regard deducted as personal and liv hat a bachelor would tend to sp there is also the possibility of which event the contribution to be cut drastically. Further, subj her is likely to have his own inco ependant and the mother alone w In the absence of evidence to l not be considered as dependa endent and earning, or married, survived by parents and siblin dered to be a dependant, and 5 and living expenses of the bache e family. However, where the fam

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

of t as you exp wil *

¶42men Sus an 25 y to 3 for uni to 6

12.

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

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

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

*

* We therefore hold that the m ntioned in Column (4) of the t samma Thomas³, Trilok Chandr operative multiplier of 18 (for th years), reduced by one unit for e 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 yea 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 4 its for every five years, that is, M 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years n'ble Supreme Court in the case y Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 63-A and 168 of the Motor Ve ) Deduction of personal an ultiplicand; ) Selection of multiplier depen ) Age of deceased on basis for dent on the income of the deceas owed mother and large number brothers, his personal and liv third and contribution to the fam *

*

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

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

(D) esta

(E) age The

) Reasonable figures on con ate, loss of consortium and funer ) Future prospects for all cate es: with permanent job; self-emp e relevant portion of the judgmen "52. As far as the conventi it difficult to agree with the granted Rs.25,000 towards towards loss of consortium care and guidance for minor of care and minor children d to Santosh Devi, it does n conventional and traditional determined on percentage b acceptable criterion. Unlike heads have to be quantified reasonable foundation. Ther that price index, fall in ba many a field have to be n oblivious to the same. Ther aspect. Otherwise, there determination of the same an there will be immense variat as a consequence of which, and courts are likely to be nventional heads, namely, loss ral expenses, with escalation; egories of persons and for differ ployed or fixed salary. nt is reproduced as under:- ional heads are concerned, we f e view expressed in Rajesh². It s funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,0 and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss r children. The head relating to l does not exist. Though Rajesh ref not seem to follow the same. T l heads, needless to say, cannot basis because that would not be e determination of income, the s d. Any quantification must hav re can be no dispute over the f nk interest, escalation of rates noticed. The court cannot rem re has been a thumb rule in t will be extreme difficulty nd unless the thumb rule is appli tion lacking any kind of consiste the orders passed by the tribun e unguided. Therefore, we think

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

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

*

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

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

*

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

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

13.

Ho Company Limi 130] after consid the law regardi 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 dering Sarla Verma(supra) and ing consortium. Relevant para "21. A Constitution Bench o with the various heads und awarded in a death case. consortium. In legal parlanc term which encompasses 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 Verma⁴ 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 d Pranay Sethi (Supra) has sett as of the same are reproduced 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

sary for hall ave ying s of Rs said hree nce CC tled d as ealt be of ious

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

¶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 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. 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

ium nce, his xual ghts ows any, very aid, and to An and test me. ship rms dern of a Most ded hild. loss ased d at

CONCLUSION

14.

In above referred objections filed modified accor compensation as Sr. No. Mont Futu Dedu expen

¶4Total Mult Annu

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 ap d by the claimants are allowed rdingly. The claimants/cross ob s per the calculations made here-Heads thly Income re prospects @ 10% uction towards pers nditure l Income tiplier ual Dependency 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 of Rs 40,000 each for l the Hon'ble Supreme Court in peal is dismissed whereas cro d. The award dated 03.02.2006 bjectors are entitled to enhan -under:- Compensation Awarde Rs.10000/- Rs.1000/- (10% of 10000) onal Rs.3667/- [1/3 of 11000]

Rs.7333/- (11000-3667) Rs.9,67,956/- (Rs.7333x 12 x 11)

inor d to filial who t. A unt. s on ilial ium tion and loss oss-6 is nced ed )

Loss Fune Loss Paren Spou

Total

Amo

Enha

15.

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

16.

The compensation al from the receipt enhanced amou claimants/object claimants/object Tribunal.

17.

Dis

18.

Pen

05.11.2024 Amit Kaundal

Whether s

Whether r

of Estate eral Expenses of Consortium ntal : Rs.48,000/- x 2 usal : Rs.48,000/- l Compensation unt Awarded by the Tribunal anced amount far as the interest part is conce Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Sh d Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Cases 107, the appellants-claim he enhanced amount from the da zation. e respondent No.2 is directed t long with interest with the Tribu t of copy of this judgment. The unt of compensation along with tors as per ratio settled in th tors are directed to furnish th sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st

(

speaking/non-speaking : Speakin reportable

: Yes/No Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.96000/- Rs.10,99,956/- Rs.5,60,000/- Rs.5,39,956/- erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre hyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3 e Transport Corporation (2022 mants are granted the interest @ ate of filing of claim petition till to deposit the enhanced amount unal within a period of two mon Tribunal is directed to disburse interest in the accounts of all he award dated 03.02.2006. T heir bank account details to tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ng

eme 2) 5 9% t of nths