Jeet Kaur @ Jeeto & Ors v. Darshan Singh & Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 208 FAO-2874-2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 30, 2024 Jeet Kaur @ Jeetu and others ......Appellant(s) Vs. Darshan Singh and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:  HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Chetan Goyal, Advocate for the applicants-appellants. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for PRTC. ---- SUDEEPTI SHARMA  J. (ORAL)

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

30.11.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short,   'the   Tribunal')  for   enhancement   of   compensation   granted   to   the claimants/appellants, who are the family members of the deceased. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

¶2The brief facts of the case are that on 20.03.2005 deceased-Jagshir Singh @ Kala was going with his friend on his cycle from village Kakuwala to Patran for some domestic work. In the meantime, a bus came from Dirba side being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and struck with the bicycle from backside and due to very fast speed the bus turn upside down and the passengers of the bus also got injuries in this accident whereas Jagshir Singh died on the spot.

¶3On notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied the factum of compensation.

¶4From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

¶1Whether the motor accident which claimed the life of Jagshir Singh @ Kala s/o Jarnail Singh took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.PB-11K-2453 by its driver Darshan Singh, respondent No.1? OPP

2.  Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, to the to what extent? OPP

3.  Relief.

¶5After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,59,200/- alongwith interest @ 7-½% per annum. Hence the claimants/appellants filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS

6.  The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erroneously taken the income of deceased as Rs.1800/- per month, whereas, the deceased was working as mechanic and doing farming, earning Rs.6,000/- per month. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has not granted future prospectus @ 40% as the deceased was 24 years of age.  He further contends that no amount was awarded under the conventional Heads. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation should be enhanced as per latest law.

¶7Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted.

8.  I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case. Sonia Arora +. A perusal of the a'ard indicates that the $ri&unal has assessed the inco!e of the deceased as #s.%,000  per !onth, 'hereas, the deceased 'as 'or4ing as !echanic and doing far!ing, earning of #s.),0000  per !onth. Considering the facts on record, it 'ould &e 8ust and reasona&le to assess inco!e of the deceased as #s.40000  per !onth. :urther that the learned $ri&unal has not granted future prospectus as per the settled la' and no a!ount 'as granted under conventional Beads. 3ETT6ED 6A8 ON COMPEN3ATION %0. BonC&le "upre!e Court in the case of  Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 9(200:) 6 3*0+!;! 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 I attest to the accuracy and evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

¶32Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only d the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% 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. %%. BonC&le "upre!e Court in the case of  National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 9(2017) 16 3CC 680< has clarified the la' under "ections %)), %)3 A and %), of the Motor *ehicles Act, %+,,, on the follo'ing aspects: -A/ 6eduction   of   personal   and   living   e>penses   to   deter!ine !ultiplicandE 2024.09.06 17:46 -</ "election of !ultiplier depending on age of deceasedE = -C/ Age of deceased on &asis for applying !ultiplierE -6/ #easona&le figures on conventional heads, na!ely, loss of estate, loss of consortiu! and funeral e>penses, 'ith escalationE -F/ :uture prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: 'ith per!anent 8o&E self e!ployed or fi>ed salary. $he relevant portion of the 8udg!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 percentage basis in every 2024.09.06 17:46 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." %2.  BonC&le   "upre!e   Court   in   the   case   of  Ma4;a   G!'!+a1 I'&*+a'$! C";0a'> 6%;% !- 2&/ Na'* Ra; a1%a& C.*.+* Ra; & O .!+& 92018(18) 3CC 170< after considering   3a+1a 2!+;a (&*0+a) and P+a'a> 3! .% (3*0+a) has settled the la' regarding 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 2024.09.06 17:46 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. CONC6U3ION %3. 5n vie' of the la' laid do'n &y the BonC&le "upre!e Court in the a&ove referred to 8udg!ents, the present appeal is allo'ed. $he a'ard dated

30.%%.200( is !odified accordingly. $he appellants clai!ants are entitled to enhanced co!pensation as per the calculations !ade here under: "r. Beads Co!pensation A'arded 7o. % Monthly 5nco!e   #s. 40000 2 :uture prospects 2 40A #s.%)000  -40A of 4000/ 3 6eduction   to'ards   personal #s.%,)).)) rounded of %,)?0 e>penditure G%03 of -4000H%)00/I

¶4$otal 5nco!e  #s.3?330  -()00 %,)?/ 4 Multiplier  18 5 Annual Dependency  Rs.8,06,328/-(3733 x 12 x 18) 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/- x1 Spousal :   Rs. 48,000/-x1 Filial   :     Rs. 48,000/-x1 Total Compensation Rs. 9,86,328/-Amount Awarded by the  Rs. 2,59,200/-Tribunal Enhanced amount Rs.7,27,128/-

¶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 Nandu State Transport Corporation  (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants-claimants are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition, till the date of its realization.

¶15The respondent-PRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the accounts of all the claimants/appellants as per ratio settled in the award dated 30.11.2005. The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

¶16Disposed off accordingly.

¶17Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE August 30, 2024 Sonia ArorGa .Arora/sonia arora   Whether speaking/non-speaking :  Speaking I attest to the accuracy and        Whether reportable      : Yes