Prabh Devi and Another v. Surinder Kumar and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 08, 2024 Prabh Devi and anr. (since deceased) ......Appellant(s) Vs. Surinder Kumar and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:  HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S.R. Kamboj, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Co. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J  . C.M. No. 17642-CII-2024 The present application for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased of both the appellants is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and the persons named in Para No. 3 (i) to (v) and 4 (i) to (v) are impleaded as party in the present appeal, being legal heirs of the deceased-appellants. Accordingly, Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place. FAO-5222-2006

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

19.04.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short, 'the Tribunal')  for enhancement of compensation, granted to the claimants/appellants. Gaurav Arora FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

¶2The brief facts of the case are that on 29.11.2004, at about 5 P.M, Mohinder Pal @ Minder Pal (since deceased) was returning to his village Barian Khurd on scooter bearing registration No. PB-07-H-3461 with his friend Dilbagh Singh, resident of Hakumatpur. The scooter was being driven by Mohinder Pal @ Minder Pal (since deceased) and Dilbagh Singh was sitting as pillion rider. When they reached near Hadda rodi in the area of village Paddi Sura Singh, in the meantime, a LP Truck bearing registration No. PB-07-C-4773 came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the above scooter of Mohinder Pal @ Minder Pal (since deceased). As a result of this impact, Mohinder Pal @ Minder Pal (since deceased) received multiple grievous injuries and Surender Kumar-driver of the offending truck fled away from the spot. Dilbagh Singh took Mohinder Pal @ Minder Pal (since deceased) to PHC Saila Khurd from where he was referred to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. However, on the way, Mohinder Pal @ Minder Pal succumbed to the injuries on the way near Ram Colony Camp.

¶3Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and contested the claim petition and denied the factum of the accident/compensation.

¶4From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1) Whether death of Mohinder Pal has taken place as a result of rash and negligent driving of Surinder Kumar respondent driver of truck No. PB-07-C-4773 ? OPP 2) Whether the claimants are only legal heirs left by the deceased dependent upon him ? OPP 3) Whether the driver of the truck in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident? OPR-3. 4) Whether the vehicle was not being driven as per terms and conditions of the Insurance police? OPR 5)Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties? OPR 6) Relief.

¶5After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Hence the claimants/appellants filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal . SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6.  The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side, as Mohinder Pal @ Minder Pal (since deceased)  was about 33 years of age and was having regular income as he was working as a Teacher in a school. He was highly qualified graduate person and giving tuitions to the students. He had a very bright future. The learned Tribunal failed to include future prospects in its calculation. Further the multiplier of 10 was applied instead of 18. He further submits that nothing has been awarded towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and for funeral expenses. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation should be enhanced as per latest law.

¶7Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   respondent-Insurance   Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount - of compensation as assessed b, the learned #ribunal has ri$htl, been $ranted. #herefore, he pra,s for dismissal of the appeal.

3.  ! have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the %hole record of this case. /. A perusal of the record indicates that the #ribunal has %ron$l, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10006  per month. 4o%ever, under the prevailin$ facts of the present case, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.((006  per month in accordance %ith the minimum %a$es prescribed for hi$hl, s-illed %or-er in the State of Punjab at the prevalent time. Moreover, no amount %as a%arded to%ards future prospect, loss of estate, loss of consortium and for funeral e&penses.  #herefore, the a%ard reBuires indul$ence b, this Court. 4ETT8ED 8A; ON COMPEN4ATION .0. 4onDble Supreme Court in the case of  Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another <(200=) 6 451*e(e C 5*t Ca$e$ 121>, laid do%n the la% on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under: E30. 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 Gaurav Arora 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 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 I attest to the accuracy and 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. ... 4onDble Supreme Court in the case of  National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. <(2019) 16 4CC 6+0> has clarified the la% under Sections .22, .2( A and .23 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ./33, on the follo%in$ aspects: )A* ;eduction   of   personal   and   livin$   e&penses   to   determine multiplicandF )9* Selection of multiplier dependin$ on a$e of deceasedF )C* A$e of deceased on basis for appl,in$ multiplierF );* Reasonable fi$ures on conventional heads, namel,, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral e&penses, %ith escalationF )G* ?uture prospects for all cate$ories of persons and for different a$es: %ith permanent jobF self emplo,ed or fi&ed salar,. #he relevant portion of the jud$ment is reproduced as under: E52. 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. 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.  4onDble   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of  Ma?(a   Ge%e*a2 I%$5*a%"e C (1a%@ 8#(#te/ 3$0 Na%5 Ra( a2#a$ C.5.*5 Ra( & Ot.e*$ <201+(1+) 4CC 1:0> after considerin$   4a*2a 3e*(a ($51*a) and P*a%a@ 4et.# (451*a) has settled the la% re$ardin$ consortium.  Relevant paras of 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. 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.

24. The 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. 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

19.04.2006  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.3300/- 2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1320/- (40% of 3320) 3 Rs.2310/- (4620X 1/2) Deduction   towards   personal expenditure ½

¶4Total Income  Rs.2310/- (4620-2310) 4 Multiplier  18 5 Annual Dependency  Rs.4,43,520/- (2320X12X18) 6 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/- 7 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/- 8 Loss of Consortium Rs.96000/- Filail :     Rs. 48,000/-x2 Total Compensation Rs.5,75,520/- Amount Awarded by the  Rs.2,40,000/- Enhanced amount Rs.3,35,520/- (rounded off to Rs. 3,35,600/-)

¶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 Insurance Company-respondent No. 3 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 the legal represantives of both the appellants in equal share. The legal representatives of the claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

¶16Disposed of accordingly.

¶17Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE November 08, 2024 G Arora Whether speaking/non-speaking :  Yes