Islami and Ors v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 203 FAO-2919-2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 16, 2024 Islami @ Kabla and others ......Appellants Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others ......Respondents CORAM:  HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.1-United India Insurance Company Ltd. Ms. Madhu Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3-New India Assurance Company Ltd. ---- S  UDEEPTI SHARMA  J. (ORAL)

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

28.11.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs.2,83,800/- on account of death of Ash Mohd, in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 05.02.2003.

¶2As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of S  UBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

¶3The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the amount of compensation assessed by the Ld. Tribunal is on the lower side. He further contends :-

ii) That the Ld. Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased.

iii) That no amount was granted for future prospects and loss of estate.

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

¶4Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents-Insurance Companies, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contend that the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the appeal.

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

¶6A perusal of the award indicates that  the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.2100/-p.m.   However, under the prevailing facts of the present case, his income is to be assessed as Rs. 2200/- per month in accordance with the minimum wages prescribed for unskilled worker in the State of Haryana.

ii) Further perusal of the award reveals that the deceased was 35 years of age at the time of the accident, as per post mortem report Ex.P12.

iii) That the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenditure of the deceased instead of 1/4th. iv5 A perusa  of the a*ard further revea s that no a(ount *as granted for future prospects and  oss of estate. Moreover, the a(ount granted for funera  e<penses and  oss of consortiu( is a so on  o*er side. v5 =urther no a(ount *as granted for future prospects, funera e<penses,   oss   of   consortiu(   and   oss   of   estate.  +herefore,   it   re9uires indu gence of this 'ourt. 7ETT5ED 5A8 ON COMPEN7ATION ?. ;on4, e Supre(e 'ourt in the case of  Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 9(2009) 6 731* (  C!3*t Ca% % 121:, aid do*n the  a* on assess(ent of co(pensation and the re evant paras of the sa(e are as under:$ @30. 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. -. ;on4, e Supre(e 'ourt in the case of   National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 9(201<) 16 7CC 6=0: has c arified the a* under Sections #//, #/)$A and #/- of the Motor 0ehic es Act, #1--, on the fo o*ing aspects:$ 2A5 Deduction of persona  and  iving e<penses to deter(ine (u tip icandA 2B5 Se ection of (u tip ier depending on age of deceasedA 2'5 Age of deceased on ,asis for app ying (u tip ierA 2D5 8easona, e figures on conventiona  heads, na(e y,  oss of estate,  oss of consortiu( and funera  e<penses, *ith esca ationA 2>5 =uture  prospects  for  a   categories   of  persons   and   for different ages: *ith per(anent jo,A se f$e(p oyed or fi<ed sa ary. +he re evant portion of the judg(ent is reproduced as under:$ @52. 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. Sonia Arora 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. 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."

1.  ;on4, e   Supre(e   'ourt   in   the   case   of  Ma?(a   G & *a+ I&%3*a&#  C!(1a&4 5$($t . 2%0 Na&3 Ra( a+$a% C/3/*3 Ra( & Ot/ *% 9201=(1=) 7CC 130:  after considering   7a*+a 2 *(a  (%31*a)  and  P*a&a4 7 t/$ (731*a) has sett ed the  a* regarding consortiu(.  8e evant 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 Sonia Arora 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. RE5IEF #0. &n vie* of the  a*  aid do*n ,y the ;on4, e Supre(e 'ourt in the a,ove referred to judg(ents, the present appea  is a o*ed and the a*ard dated 2-.##.200. is (odified according y. +he appe ants$c ai(ants are entit ed to the enhanced co(pensation as per the ca cu ations (ade here$under:$ Sr. ;eads 'o(pensation A*arded "o. # Month y &nco(e 8s.22007$ 2 =uture prospects C  40 D 8s.--07$240D of 22005 ) Deduction   to*ards   persona 8s.??07$ 2E th of )0-05 e<penditure E th

¶4+ota  &nco(e 8s.2)#07$2)0-0$??05 . Mu tip ier #/ / Annua  Dependency 8s.4,4),.207$22)#0<#2<#/5 ? !oss of >state 8s.#-,0007$ - =unera  ><penses 8s.#-,0007$ 1 !oss of 'onsortiu( 8s.2,--,0007$ Parenta   : 8s. 4-,0007$ < ) Spousa   : 8s. 4-,0007$ < # =i ia       : 8s. 4-,0007$ < 2 #0 T!ta+ C!(1 &%at$!& 8s.?,/?,.207$ 11 Amount Awarded by the  Rs.2,83,800/- Tribunal 12 Enhanced amount Rs.4,83,720/- (7,67,520-2,83,800)

¶11So 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 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.

¶12Since   the   accident   in   question   took   place   on   account   of contributory negligence on the part of drivers of the trailor and jeep and their negligence has been apportioned in the ratio of 75:25. The respondent No.3-New India Assurance Company, is held entitled for the payment of 75% of the enhanced compensation and respondent No.6-United India Insurance Company, is held entitled for the payment of 25% of the enhanced compensation.

¶13The respondents No.3 and 6-Insurance Companies are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment as per award. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount   of   compensation   alongwith   interest   in   the   account   of   the claimants/appellants. The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

¶14Further, the Insurance Companies are hereby directed to disburse the current scheduled fee to their respective counsel, Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate and Ms. Madhu Sharma, Advocate within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of  copy of this judgment.

¶15Disposed of accordingly.

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