Jai Singh v. Tarlochan Singh and Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 307 FAO-2162-2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 16, 2024 Jai Singh ......Appellant Vs. Tarlochan Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:  HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr.Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Davinder Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 4. Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company ---- S  UDEEPTI SHARMA  J. (ORAL)

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

04.01.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellant/claimant No.1 and respondents No.5 and 6, who are the family members of the deceased. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

¶2The brief facts of the case are that on 27.4.2001 at about 10:00 a.m., Swaran Singh (since deceased) was coming from village Fatehpur towards Ropar on his scooter bearing registration No.PB-32A-5040, being driven by him with proper care and caution on left side of the road. When he reached a little short of Santry post on Ropar headworks, a truck bearing registration   No.HR-01-GA-0595   being   driven   by   its   driver   rashly   and negligently came from the opposite direction and struck against his scooter.  As a result of the impact, he fell down on the road and received multiple serious injuries. He breathed last while he was taken to Civil Hospital, Ropar.

¶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 Swaran Singh died in accident caused by respondent No.1 Tarlochan Singh or Charanjit Singh while driving truck No.HR-01-GA-0595 rashly and negligently?OPP

2.Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation-if so to what extent and from whom?OPP

3. Whether claim petition is maintainable ? OPP

4. Whether claim petition is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties?OPR

5.Whether the driver of the truck was not holding a valid and effective DL at the time of accident ? OPR

6.Whether the truck was not having a valid route permit and fitness certificate ? OPR

7.Relief.

¶5After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record,   the   learned   Tribunal   awarded   compensation   to   the   tune   of Rs.2,66,000/-. Hence, the claimant/appellant filed the present appeal for grant of enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to claimants. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

¶6The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He further contends :-

i) that the multiplier of 18 should be applied ;

ii) that no amount was granted for future prospects and loss of estate;

iii) that the amount awarded for loss of consortium and funeral expenses is also on lower side. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation should be enhanced as per latest law.

¶7Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents,   however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the appeal.

8.  I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

¶9A perusal of the award indicates that the Tribunal has erred while applying multiplier of 11 instead of 18.

ii) Further no amount was granted for future prospects and loss of estate.

iii) Moreover, the amount awarded for loss of consortium and funeral expenses is also on lower side. Therefore, it requires indulgence of this Court. *ETT3ED 3A5 ON COMPEN*ATION $0. ;on2ble Su reme )ourt in the case of  Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 6(2007) 6 *8.) 9  C!8)t Ca% % 121:, laid do,n the la, on assessment of com ensation and the relevant  aras of the same are as under:' A30. 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 and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent ;

¶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. $$. ;on2ble Su reme )ourt in the case of   National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 6(2017) 16 *CC 6<0: has clarified the la, under Sections $--, $-&'A and $-/ of the Motor Vehicles Act, $.//, on the follo,in" as ects:' 0A3 !eduction of  ersonal and livin" e? enses to determine multi licand> 093 Selection of multi lier de endin" on a"e of deceased> 0)3 A"e of deceased on basis for a l*in" multi lier> 0!3 %easonable fi"ures on conventional heads, namel*, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral e? enses, ,ith escalation> 0B3 8uture   ros ects  for  all   cate"ories   of  ersons   and   for different a"es: ,ith  ermanent <ob> self'em lo*ed or fi?ed salar*. +he relevant  ortion of the <ud"ment is re roduced as under:' A52. 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 percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. WeSonia Arora 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." < $2.  ;on2ble   Su reme   )ourt   in   the   case   of  Ma+9a   G & )a/ I&%8)a&#  C!9.a&= 3$9$t 1 0%- Na&8 Ra9 a/$a% C,8,)8 Ra9 & Ot, )% 6201<(1<) *CC 130:  after considerin"   *a)/a 0 )9a  (%8.)a)  and  P)a&a= * t,$ (*8.)a) has settled the la, re"ardin" consortium.  %elevant  aras of the same are re roduced 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. RE3IEF $&. (n vie, of the la, laid do,n b* the ;on2ble Su reme )ourt in the above referred to <ud"ments, the  resent a eal is allo,ed and the a,ard dated

04.0$.200- is modified accordin"l*. +he a ellant'claimant and res ondents No.5 and 6 are entitled to the enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here-under:- Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded No. 1 Monthly Income Rs.3000/- 2 Future prospects @ 40 % Rs.1200/- (40% of 3000/-) 3 Deduction   towards   personal Rs.1400/- ( 1/3rd  of 4200) expenditure 1/3

¶4Total Income Rs.2800/-4 Multiplier 18 5 Annual Dependency Rs.6,04,800/-( 2800 x 18 x 12) 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 Spousal  : Rs. 48,000/- x Filial      : Rs. 48,000/- x 3 Total Compensation Rs.7,84,000/-Amount Awarded by the  Rs.2,66,000/-Tribunal Enhanced amount Rs.5,18,800/-

¶14So 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 Nadu State Transport Corporation  (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellant-claimant and respondents No.5 and 6 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.

¶15The respondents No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation  alongwith interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount   of   compensation   alongwith   interest   in   the   accounts   of   the claimant/appellant. The claimant/appellant is directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

¶16  However, respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation in the first instance with the liberty to recover the same from respondents No.2 and 4.

¶17Disposed of accordingly.

¶18Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE October 16, 2024 sonia arora Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking