Sachin Kumar and Anr v. Sukhchain Singh ;And Ors

FAO-3433-2006  (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3433-2006   (O&M) Date of Decision: November 08, 2024 Sachin Kumar and another ......Appellants Vs. Sukhchain Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:  HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate with Mr. Arun Biriwal, Mr. Anshuman Sethi, Mr. Paramdeep Singh and Ms. Preeti Bansal, Advocates, for the appellants. Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate for Mr. Rajeshwar Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No. 3-Insurance Co. Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.6-Insurance Co. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J  .

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

16.03.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.2,95,000/-, on account of death of their mother (Kanta Devi) in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 13.08.2002.

¶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 brevity. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3.  The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to Gaurav Arobrae enhanced. He submits that the deceased was 42 years old at the time of alleged FAO-3433-2006  (O&M) 2 accident. She was house wife. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the the income @ Rs. 24000/- per annum taken by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. Further the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 10. The amount awarded under the conventional head is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced. The Tribunal has erred in law in not giving future prospects to the appellants.  Therefore,   he   prays   that   the   present   appeal   be   allowed   and compensation should be enhanced, as per latest law.

¶4Per contra, Mr. Suman Jain, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 - Insurance Company of ill fated jeep bearing registration No. HR-05-H-2675, 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.  He, however, contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in law to conclude that it is a case of contributory negligence and the Tribunal failed to discuss the statement of the owner of the jeep who appeared as PW5-Harbans Lal, who admitted that it is a Pick Up Mahendra and the trolley attached with it, was for carrying goods. Further it was proved on record that the driver of the jeep was not negligent for the accident in question. The jeep was on the extreme left side and the bus driver hit the jeep on the right side. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶5On the other hand, Mr Neeraj Khanna, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 -Insurance Company of offending bus bearing registration No. PB-02-C-9499, 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. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

6.  I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case. FAO-3433-2006  (O&M) 3 ?. A perusal o  the record indicates that the "ri-unal has rightl! assessed the income o  the deceased as Rs.$;...7& per annum. Moreover, the  amount awarded towards loss o  estate, loss o  consortium,  uneral eBpenses etc is on the lower side.  :owever, nothing has -een awarded under the head  uture prospects. "he "ri-unal has erred in law in appl!ing the multiplier o  ,. instead o  ,;. "here ore, the award re9uires indulgence o  this (ourt.

¶1"he claimants are also entitled  or pain and su ering in view o judgment o  :on4-le the ApeB (ourt in a case o  Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Maran Chandra Das and others, 2023 ACJ 864 wherein it has -een held as under:& Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 7.1.2021 passed by the High Court of Tripura.

¶2The question of law sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioner does not arise for consideration for the reason that the deceased son of the respondent(s) met with an accident on

20.10.2015 and he remained hospitalised at Kolkata where multiple surgeries were performed on him. However, he could not survive and succumbed to injuries on 13.9.2016.

¶3In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, where the parents witnessed the pain, agony and suffering of their son for almost one year, the compensation awarded by the High Court, under the head of pain and suffering, cannot be said to be without any basis. The parents themselves also suffered unbearable pain every moment during this entire period" FAO-3433-2006  (O&M) 4

¶0  'n   view   o   the   a-ove   re erred   to  3456) &t   (%47+a),  the claimants7appellants are held entitled  or grant o  compensation under the head o pain and su ering, as the deceased remained admitted in the hospital w.e. ,%..1.$..$ to $%..1.$..$. SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION ,.. :on4-le Supreme (ourt in the case o  Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 8(2009) 6 247+ )  C!4+t Ca% % 121:, laid down the law on assessment o  compensation and the relevant paras o  the same 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 FAO-3433-2006  (O&M) ; 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 on the father.

¶32Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only 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 FAO-3433-2006  (O&M) 6 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-le Supreme (ourt in the case o   National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 8(201<) 16 2CC 6,0: has clari ied the law under Sections ,**, ,*%&A and ,*1 o  the Motor /ehicles Act, ,011, on the  ollowing aspects:& 2A5 8eduction   o   personal   and   living   eBpenses   to   determine multiplicandE 2B5 Selection o  multiplier depending on age o  deceasedE 2(5 Age o  deceased on -asis  or appl!ing multiplierE 285 Reasona-le  igures on conventional heads, namel!, loss o estate, loss o  consortium and  uneral eBpenses, with escalationE 2F5 >uture prospects  or all categories o  persons and  or di erent ages: with permanent jo-E sel &emplo!ed or  iBed salar!. "he relevant portion o  the judgment 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 FAO-3433-2006  (O&M) < 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. FAO-3433-2006  (O&M) , 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." ,$.  :on4-le   Supreme   (ourt   in   the   case   o  Ma6)a   G & +a= I&%4+a&#  C!)7a&> 1$)$t 5 .%/ Na&4 Ra) a=$a% C?4?+4 Ra) & FAO-3433-2006  (O&M) 9 Ot? +% 8201,(1,) 2CC 130: a ter considering   2a+=a . +)a (%47+a) and P+a&a> 2 t?$ (247+a) has settled the law regarding consortium.  Relevant paras o  the same 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. FAO-3433-2006  (O&M) 10 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 FAO-3433-2006  (O&M) 11 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. CONCLUSION

¶13In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award dated

16.03.2006  is modified accordingly. The appellants-claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here-under:- Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded No. 1 Monthly Income   Rs.2000/- 2 Future prospects @ 25 Rs.500/-(2000X25%) 3 Deduction   towards   personal Rs.833 (2500X1/3rd) expenditure 1/3

¶4Total Income  Rs.1667/- (2500-833) 4 Multiplier  14 5 Annual Dependency  Rs.2,80,056/- (1667X12X14) 6 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/- 7 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/- 8 Loss of Consortium Rs.96,000/- Parental :     Rs. 48,000/-x2

¶9Medical expenses Rs.1,35,000/-

¶10Pain and sufferings Rs.25,000/- Total Compensation Rs.5,72,056/- Deduction:- Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,95,000/- Enhanced amount Rs.2,77,056/-(572056-295000)

¶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 I attest to Sthue apccrueramcy ean dCourt Cases 107, the appellants-claimants are granted the interest @ 9% FAO-3433-2006  (O&M) 12 per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.

¶15The Insurance Company-respondent No. 3 and 6 are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation in the ratio of 50:50  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 the appellants in the ratio settled by the Tribunal in its award dated 16.03.2006. The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

¶16However, respondent No. 3-Insurance Company is entitled to recover the enhanced amount of compensation from respondent No. 1-Sukhchain Singh (driver of the offending bus) and respondent No. 2 (owner of the bus) and respondent No. 6-Insurance Company is entitled to recover the enhanced amount of compensation from respondent No. 4-Rajender Kumar (driver of the offending jeep) and respondent No. 5 (owner of the jeep)

¶17The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate and Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate within a period of twenty days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶18Disposed of accordingly.

¶19Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE November 08, 2024 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/non-speaking :  Yes