Jagmal and Ors v. Attar Singh

IN T

Jagmal and Ano Attar Singh and

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

for

Mr

Mr

for SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The passed in claim by the learned M for setting aside well as for enha are family memb FACTS NOT IN

2.

Bri the claimants/ap pillion rider on cousin Surende Hansi side, a po to as 'the offen

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA Da other

VERSUS Others

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. S.S.Mor, Advocate the appellants r. Paul S.Saini, Advocate with r. Vipul Sharma, Advocate the respondent – Insurance Co. -.- HARMA, J. (Oral)

e present appeal has been preferr petition filed under Section 166 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, e the finding of the Tribunal re ancement of compensation grant bers of the deceased. N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that on 13 ppellant, namely, Anil (since de a scooter bearing registration N er. When they were 2/3 kilome olice van bearing registration No. nding vehicle') being driven b

JAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-4233-2007 (O&M) ate of Decision : 07.11.2024

....Appellants

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA

red against award dated 25.07.20 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19 , Bhiwani (for short, 'the Tribun garding contributory negligence ted to the claimants/appellants, w

3.12.2004 at about 8:30 AM, son eceased) aged about 19 years, w No.HR-20-6954 being driven by etres from Bawani Khera towa .HR-39A-2140 (hereinafter refer by respondent No.1 in a rash

988, nal') e as who n of was his ards rred

negligent manne Anil suffered g Bhiwani, where was got register qua the acciden from agricultura

3.

Up the factum of ac

4.

Fro issues:-

5.

Aft record, the learn alongwith intere

er despite heavy fog struck again grievous injuries and was accor e he was declared as brought de red at PS Bawani Khera for off nt. The deceased was stated to al activities and sale of milk. on notice of the claim petition, ccident/compensation. om the pleadings of the parties,

¶1Whether the accident about 8.30 a.m was because respondent No.1 while driv Police Van No.HR-39A-2140

¶2Whether petitio compensation, if so, how mu

¶3Whether the petition form? OPP

¶4Whether the responde and effective driving license effect? OPR

¶5Relief. ter taking into consideration th rned Tribunal awarded compens est @ 7% per annum. However

nst their scooter as a result where dingly shifted to General Hosp ead. FIR No.161, dated 13.12.20 fences under Sections 279/337 I be earning Rs.10,000/- per mo , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow which took place on 13.12.2004 e of rash and negligent driving ving the vehicle i.e. Swaraj Ma 0, if so, its effect? OPP oners are entitled to rece uch and from whom? OPR is not maintainable in the pres ent No.1 was not holding the va e on the date of accident, if so, he pleadings and the evidence sation to the tune of Rs.3,00,00 , learned Tribunal further held t

eof, pital IPC onth nied wing 4 at g of azda eive sent alid , its on 00/-

case involved c Consequently, t the claimants/a compensation an SUBMISSIONS

6.

The amount assessed that the learne contributory neg cycle driven by control over dri due to negligent applied multipli prospects, loss compensation w present appeal b be set aside and law.

7.

Per the learned Trib of compensation

8.

I h record of this ca

9.

The as under:-

contributory negligence, attribut the claimants were awarded com appellants filed the present app nd challenging the finding regard S OF LEARNED COUNSELS e learned counsel for the claim d by the learned Tribunal is on t d Tribunal has erred in holdi gligence as the deceased – Anil his cousin Surender. He further ving of motor vehicle and the a t driving respondent No.1. More ier of 15 instead of 18 and no a of consortium and for loss of e was granted for funeral expen be allowed and finding of the Tr the awarded amount of compen r contra, learned for the responde bunal vide award dated 25.07.20 n. Therefore, he prays for dismis have heard learned counsel for ase. e relevant paragraph of the awa

ting 50% liability to the deceas mpensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. He peal for seeking enhancement ding contributory negligence. S FOR THE PARTIES mants-appellants contends that the lower side. He further conte ing the case in hand as case l was a pillion rider on the mot contends that a pillion rider had accident in question solely occur eover, the Tribunal has erroneou amount has been granted for fut estate. He further contends that ses. He, therefore, prays that ribunal qua contributory neglige nsation be enhanced as per the la ent-Insurance Company argues t 007 has rightly assessed the amo ssal of the present appeal. the parties and perused the wh ard dated 25.07.2007 is reprodu

sed. nce t of nds of tor-d no rred usly ture t no ence atest that ount hole

"7. sco was has was wh resp aga inju lod exa bei tim cou que as for con trav pos tha que was at a pla

Qua this issue, Surender Ku ooter No. HR-20/6954 and whe s driving pillion on the date an s testified that on the date and s a heavy fog when they were ich time police van No HR-39A/ pondent No.1 Attar Singh came ainst their scooter as a result w uries and ultimately succumbe dged the FIR Ex.P2 qua th amination, he has admitted that ing carried on the scooter by the me in question. On the strength unsel for the insurance compan estion took place on account of c the scooter is meant for travel b carrying goods such as milk ntention because on account of veling while holding a 35 Kg m sition to travel safely. None-the-at the respondent driver had equ estion because he has admitted d s a foggy day meaning thereby a moderate speed, the accident ace. It will not be out of place to

umar who was statedly driving ereon Anil Kumar, since deceas nd time in question viz 13.12.20 time of accident in question th e returning on the said scooter /2140 while being driven rashly e from the opposite side and str whereof Anil fell down and recei d thereto. He added that he h his accident. During his cr t a 35 Kg capacity milk drum w e pillion rider Anil on the date a of the said admission, the learn ny has argued that the acciden contributory negligence in as m by riders thereon and is not me k drums etc. 1 find merit in f the pillion rider Anil admitte milk drum would not have been i less, the fact cannot be lost sigh ually contributed for the acciden during his cross examination tha that had he driven consciously a t in question could not have ta add here that the respondent dri

sed, here r at y by ruck ived had ross was and ned t in uch eant this edly in a ht of nt in at it and ken

is a

¶8I in f too resp

10.

A p the police result 297 and 304-A states that the ac vehicle bearing speed. The fact accident occurre respondent No. cycle which wa returning to the empty at the tim Anil had no con (since deceased no contributory

11.

Evi deceased – Anil further confirm Tribunal, howe

admittedly standing trial pursua e accident in question. In view of the foregoing discussi favour of the claimant to the ef ok place on account of contribu pondent driver and the deceased perusal of the award indicates th ting in registration of FIR No.16 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. ccident occurred due to rash and g registration No.HR-39A/2040 ts recorded in the FIR clearly an ed due to rash and negligent d

¶1The deceased – Anil was me as being driven by his cousin S eir village after selling milk an me of accident. These details une ntributory role in causation of the ) had no control over operation negligence can be attributed to d idence by way of affidavit of P l after selling the milk was retur ms that the milk drum was emp ver, erred in imputing contribu

ant to the FIR Ex. P/2 lodged q ion, this issue stands decided pa effect that the accident in quest utory negligence on the part of d Anil." at the accident was duly reported 61, dated 13.12.2004 under Secti The contents of the FIR explic d negligent driving of the offend by respondent No.1 at excess nd unambiguously establish that driving of the offending vehicle erely a pillion rider on the mot Surender. As per FIR, they w nd the milk drum they carried w equivocally establish that deceas e accident. Being pillion rider, A n of the motor-cycle. Consequen deceased-Anil . PW-1 Jamal Singh establishes t rning to his village. His testimo pty at the time of accident. T utory negligence to the deceas

qua rtly tion d to ons citly ding sive by tor-were was sed-Anil ntly, that ony The

Such a finding i link between de of the accident. the mere act of negligence.

12.

Ev motor-cycle was accident to the No.1. He furth and they were re empty at the ti conditions of h rashly and negl testimony of PW and did not in proximate cause driving of respo under the condit contributory neg a pillion rider negligence.

13.

A p respondent No.1 relation to the a was exclusively

is devoid of any evidentiary bas eceased's position on the vehicle The reasoning as returned by T f being a pillion rider does not vidence by way of affidavit of P s placed on record. In his depos rash and negligent driving of th her deposed that the deceased – eturning to their village after sell me of accident. PW-2 also st heavy fog when the vehicle com ligently by respondent No.1 col W-2 conclusively establishes tha any manner, contribute to the e of the collusion is solely attr ondent No.1, who was driving tions of heavy fog. Further there gligence on the part of the decea does not amount to any act perusal of the award shows that 1, who was stated to be facing accident. This fact serves as com y attributable to the negligent

sis and fails to demonstrate a cas e as pillion rider and the occurre Tribunal is legally unsustainable t ipso facto constitute contribut PW-2 Surender Kumar, the driver ition, he categorically attributed he offending vehicle by respond Anil was seated as a pillion rid ling milk, with the milk drum be tated that accident occurred un ming from the Hansi side, driv llided with their motor-cycle. T at the deceased was a pillion ri occurrence of the accident. T ributable to the rash and neglig the offending vehicle negligen e is no factual or legal basis to in ased – Anil, as his mere presence or omission contributory to t the FIR was lodged solely aga trial pursuant to the FIR Ex.P/2 mpelling evidence that the accid driving of respondent No.1 wh

sual nce e as tory r of dent der, eing nder ven The ider The gent ntly nfer e as inst 2 in dent

driving the offe suggest any ele pillion rider of t causation of the

14.

Fur another Vs. Na in the absence o deceased victim sustained, the vi

15.

On

25.07.2005 pas absence of appli

16.

In v negligence is set

17.

Wi deceased earnin compensation in

18.

A assessed the mo that the learne consortium as p expenses, theref SETTLED LAW

19.

Ho Transport Corp

ending vehicle. Furthermore, th ement of contributory negligenc the motor-cycle, who, by all acc said accident . rther Hon'ble the Supreme Co tional Insurance Company Ltd of any evidence to show that th m contributed either to the accid ictim could not have been held g n touch-stone of hereinabove di sed by learned Tribunal Bhiw ication of judicial mind. view of the above, the finding t aside. th respect to determination of ng, his age etc. Consequently n accordance with the documenta perusal of record further sho onthly income of the deceased ed Tribunal has not granted f per the settled law. Moreover, n fore, the award requires interfere W ON COMPENSATION n'ble Supreme Court in the poration and Another [(2009) 6

here is no material on the record ce on the part of deceased – A ount played no role, whatsoever ourt in Mohammed Siddique a d. and others, 2020(3) SCC 57 h he wrongful act on the part of dent or to the nature of the injur guilty of contributory negligence iscussed findings, the award da wani, stand vitiated by a compl of Tribunal regarding contribut compensation, the record conta y, this Court shall adjudicate ary evidence on the record. ws that the Tribunal has righ as Rs.3000/-. It is further revea future prospectus, loss of est no amount was granted for fune ence by this Court. case of Sarla Verma Vs. De 6 Supreme Court Cases 121], l

d to Anil, r, in and held ries . ated lete tory ains htly aled ate, eral elhi

down the law o are as under:- "30 per ind stan dec was dep num whe

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

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 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. I ntrary, brothers and sisters will

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 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

ame ards nits pply uent ased s of r of 5th) d to ving end f his ject ome will nts,

bec be only wou and of t as you exp wil *

¶42men Sus an 25 y to 3 for uni to 6

20.

Ho Ltd. Vs. Pranay

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 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

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 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

, or ngs, 50% elor mily sed, r of ving mily e as ying with 1 to r 26 M-14 two r 56 pany

Sections 166, 1 aspects:-

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

(D) esta

(E) age The

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 ) 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

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; 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

wing mine of rent find has s of loss fers The t be e an said ve a fact s in

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 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

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 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,

this in ied, ncy nals k it able s of 000, of hink ave very 0% ause % of ture was ould

¶21Insuranc

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 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." Hon'ble Supreme Court in ce Company Limited Vs. Na

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 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 n the case of Magma Gene anu Ram alias Chuhru Ram

d as ixed d be ars. e of sary for hall ave ying s of Rs said hree eral &

Others [2 Pranay S paras of th

2018(18) SCC 130] after consi Sethi (Supra) has settled the law he same are reproduced as under "21. A Constitution Bench o with the various heads und awarded in a death case. 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

dering Sarla Verma (supra) w regarding consortium. Relev r:- 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 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

and vant ealt be of ious ntal ium nce, his xual ghts ows any, very aid, and to An

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 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.

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 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

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

CONCLUSION

22.

In above referred t regarding the co modified accord per the calculati Sr. No. M F D ex T M A L F L F

T

A

E

¶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 appeal ontributory negligence is set asi dingly. The appellants-claiman ions made here-under:- Heads Monthly Income uture prospects @40% Deduction towards personal xpenditure (1/2) Total Income Multiplier Annual Dependency Loss of Estate uneral Expenses Loss of Consortium ilial : Rs.48,000/- x 2 Total Compensation Amount awarded by the Tribun Enhanced amount

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 l is allowed. The Tribunal's find ide. The award dated 25.07.2007 nts are entitled to compensation Compensation Awarded Rs.3,000/-Rs.1200/-Rs.2100/-[1/2 of 4200] Rs.2100/-Rs.4,53,600/-(2100 x 12 x 18) Rs.18,000/-Rs.18,000/-Rs.96,000/-Rs.5,85,600/-nal Rs.1,50,000/-Rs.4,35,600/-

ium tion and loss ding 7 is n as d x

23.

So Court in Dara S and R.Valli and Supreme Cour 9% per annum o the date of its re

24.

The compensation al from the date of directed to disbu of both the clai dated 25.07.200 account details t

25.

In

18.07.2024, the scheduled fees t date of receipt o

26.

Dis

27.

Pen

November 7, 20 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

far as the interest part is conce Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shy d Others VS. Tamil Nandu State rt Cases 107, the appellants-cla on the enhanced amount from th ealization. e Insurance Company is directed long with interest with the Tribu f receipt of certified copy of this urse the amount of compensation imants/appellants as per the rati

¶07The claimants/appellants a to the Tribunal. views of the order passed i e insurance company is hereb to Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate w of copy of this judgment. sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st

(S

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31 te Transport Corporation (2022 aimants are granted the interest he date of filing of claim petition d to deposit the enhanced amoun unal within a period of two mon s judgment. The Tribunal is furt n along with interest in the accou io settled by the Tribunal in aw are directed to furnish their b in FAO No.1682 of 2007 da y directed to deposit the curr within a period of ten days from tand disposed of. SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

eme 2) 5 t @ n till nt of nths ther unts ward ank ated