High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/2776/2019allowed

Patel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Jaswinder Kaur And Others

2025-03-04Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl25 pages

" !

# $

%&'

()*%)+,%+)&

-%$ .%$

/$00&''% 1&)*+* *23&) 4+) 5%6&)*

/$ &*05&%* $

*23&) 4+) 5%6&)

/$00&''%* 1&)*+*

7&*6 4+7) 5%6&)*

/$ &*05&%* !%& 5( &,3*358 $#$ 8 9 . $

: 14:

!! "#$%%&$'()

! + "#+(+,$'()

! -

!! "#+(+,$'()

! (

$ "#$%%&$'()

!/""0# 1# /# 2 /

0-!

"#+(+,$'()

# /""0# 1# /# 2 /

0-!

"#$%%&$'()

0 - - 2 / 0-!

14:

. !< ( 0 5!

(

$6 $ - 7

!! 5 "#$%%&$'() $6 6+

- 7 /""0# 1 2 / 0-!

"#$%%&$'() + +, +

- 7 - 5 !! "#+(+,$'() ,& ,& ,

- 7 /

0-!

"#+(+,$'() % & &

-5 ! 7 - 5 !! "# +(+,$'() &% %

)$9 %$+ :;

/<= *# $ *> :;

" /""0# 1 2 / 0-!

-! -

!! 5 "#$%%&$'()

(6$( )(9 :;

0-! !

7 - 5 !! "#+(+,$'()

$$$9 (9$+

0 $)6'

$+$, ..=

" :

(

1 ! "#

"# $%%& $'() 7

/ .- 7 -

(& '( $'() !

0 - 17 0 :

? 17 @;

A / 0-!

/""0#

1# /# 2 / 0-!

.- 7

- -! -

!! -!B "# +(+, $'() 7

- 8 .

! $) ') $'(&

!! - -!

1 -!

8 )%9%''5

% ,C !

..=>

!! "# $%%& $'() 7- !

- 7 !

/ 7- 8D$

/ .-

!! 7A

$'(&

7 ('

! -

! E -7 - !

- !

>-!

- !

! - !

#! F

> 1 !! "- A7

=A 8D$5(

- -- - -

/ 7-

7 7

/ .-

7 A -

8D6

!! !

! 7 -! -7 -

>-!

/ 7- / 0-!

:! & "#$%%&$'();

A -

! -

! !

E !

- !

!! -!

/ 7- !

- 7 !

7 / 0-!

:! & "#$%%&$'();

/ !!

- 0

!! ! - !

GF7 !- 0

! !" #$

- GF7 !- 0 %

'()!(#

. 4 .

.!$

. /""0# 1 2 / 0-!

:! & "#$%%&$'(); 7- ! !

! 7

. 0-- 8! 7

/ 7-

!! -

17 -

. .:=

..:

!! "#+(+,$'() 7- ! -! ! - 7

A 8 +''''5

- 8 +9'''5 :8 )&'''5 ;

/ 7-

- 8 (,'''5 7

- 8 (9'''5 E

/ 7- ! 17

!! -! 7 7 !! - -!

7 !! -

!! 7- - 7

17 8 &,''5 ! - 6)

qawali

8 (''''5 ! -

/ 7-

- -! !

% ,C !

- - - !

. :

. !/ 0-!

! $

, "#+(+,$'(); 7-

- !

8 9$6+5

!! - "#+(+,$'() ! - 8 )'''5 ! -

/ 7-

% ,C !

&C !

- -! -

. -!

! ! -

(56 E - 7 17 -

(5+

:= 1:!

. .:=

..:

! 7 ! -

/ 0-!

7- ! 7 "JASWINDER KAUR AND ANR.

.....APPELLANTS

VERSUS

RAMESH KUMAR AND ORS.

....RESPONDENTS CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION AS PER NIC VS. PRANAY SETHI, 2017 ACJ 2700 1.

Date of Accident: 29.09.2016 2.

Name of the deceased: Roshan Lal Age: 39 Y Occupation/Employment/Education: Qawali Singer Income: Pleaded 40,000/: p.m. Assessed Rs.6,500/: p.m. 3.

Claimants Name Relation

1. Jaswinder Kaur Mother

2. Daljot Minor Daughter MACT As per Pranay Sethi 4.

Income Assessed 6,500 9,000 5.

Future Prospects 40% 2,600 40% 3,600 6.

Total Monthly Income 6,500 12,600 7.

Total Annual Income 78,000 1,51,200 8.

Deduction 1/4th 19,500 1/3rd 50,400 9.

Annual Dependency 58,500 1,00,800

10. Multiplier

11. Total Dependency 9,08,700 (8,77,500 + 31200) 15,12,000

12. Parental/Filial Consortium ::

48,000

13. Loss of Estate 15,000 18,000

14. Funeral Exp. & Trans.

15,000 18,000

15. Loss of Consortium 40,000 48,000

16. Total compensation 9,78,700 Interest @ 7.5% p.a.

16,44,000 Enhancement 6,65,300 Interest @ 7.5% p.a.

Submitted by Vipul Sharma (Advocate for appellants)"

."::

)

1 0 !

! 5!

1 !

(& '( $'() !

! $) ') $'(&

) !

1 !

- ! 8 .

1 ! = G%($+$) 7

0 - - 2 / 0-!

>-! G86)>$,$+ 7

-7 -

/""0# 1 2 / 0-!

((

1 17 (9 '9 $'(% -

"1.

Whether the accident in question resulting into death of Roshan Lal has occurred due to composite rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. HR:71:2429 by respondent no.1 and vehicle bearing no.HR:39:D:2524 by respondent no.3 ? OPP.

* " ** + ,

* +*+ ,

* , -.. /

" 0 , 1

1 * -.2 4.

Whether there was no valid and effective route permit of vehicle at the time of accident? OPR 5.

Relief."

< ( G%( $+$)

G86)>$,$+ 7 A ,'C

/ + !

! 7 17

7 -!

7 !

1 (

+ 7 7 0

/ $

7 7 0

**+&* 5$ #

3 33@ )&@)3@ )3@6% 5( 5A35 &&)'

*+),& 570B .%$ %5 )&,5-&) %6& ,570&*%35 ()57 %6& 00&''%=52&) 3 $ (6

< $

6 - !

/ 0-!

:! & "#$%%&$'();

A - 7

7 :-!;

!! "#$%%&$'() ! ! -7 - -! E

1 A - -

8D$ A - -

=A 8D$5

1 !

$'(&

! -

!! !

-7 -

- -

-7 - !

- !

>-!

- !

-7 -

8D$ > 1 !! "- -7 - !

=A 8D$5(

:8D$;

! !

- -- - - !

/> -7 -

-7 - -

1 !

=A 8D$5%

1 ! A - !

?+3

! 4 ,

, Mechanical, Patel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Barwa, Tehsil Siwani District Bhiwani, Haryana, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: That I am working as Senior Manager, Mechanical, Patel Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Barwa, Tehsil Siwani District Bhiwani, Haryana. Our company has got a large fleet of heavy vehicles comprising Dump Trucks, Heavy Duty Vehicles, MTV and LTV for which we have engaged a number of drivers to operate those vehicles. *5 +

"6+ 7

** 4

, + !,

+ 4 ,

* *

7 2 + %8,

1 9

3* * *!

7 2 7 +

9 1+ , 1

* !

7 , * 7 * 1

< 1 3

* !

7 2 , *

, 1

* ,

7 1

"$8 "6 !

7 2 , * 7 * 1

< 1 3

, !

2 :

: 5

1 =

* , * ,

** *

1 >2

The Employee ID was issued by the Head Office relating to the approval of the appointment of Shambhu Ram as a Driver and only thereafter he was allowed to ply the vehicle and he continued to drive and operate the vehicle perfectly and competently without any fault, complaint or even without any minor accident.

1 1

1 * !

7 2

< 1 3

?=2/ @"

* * ,

?=2/ @

?=2/ @ =

: 5

* *

7 2 1

"$8 "6 *, ?=2/ @ ,

1 7!

7 2 As per procedure of the company details of Shambhu Ram as our employee were maintained in a concerned form namely employees details which was also signed by Shambhu Ram, copy of which is correct as per the original and is Ex.RW2/4. * *3

7 2

* 1

?=2/ @8

?=2/ @6+

1 7!

7 2 * * 9 7 1

* + , * 9

%8 ,

* * 1 *

1 1

* 1

1 The company as such has not caused any breach of policy conditions. The concerned vehicle falsely had named in the alleged accident had valid national permit part A and part B which have brought today with me, copy of which is correct and is Ex.RW2/7. 3 * 1

+ , 9

7 * 9 * 1 * * As such we have not breached any term of the insurance policy. The vehicle No.HR39D 2524 was duly insured, having valid Registration Certificate and Route Permit. That the alleged accident was not at all caused due to negligent or reckless driving of the vehicle No.HR:39D 2524 belonging to the respondent NO.4, Company Driven by the driver. I have been authorised to appear and depose in the present case on behalf of the company as per the authority letter dated 13.04.2018, which is Ex.RW2/8."

!! 5

! 7 -!

-7 -

* 7 !

! - A -

A -

1 - A

7 7

!! 7A

8D6

= A - -

8D65

- -

8D$ A -

* 7 ! - A -

! !

A -

1 /""0# 1 2 / 0-!

! , 7 17 -

-7 -

!! 5 -! -7 -

! A -

:! & "# $%%&$'();

1 GF7 !- 0

)+ - -!

! -!

:! & "#$%%&$'(); 7 ! -!

- !

! -

/ 7

7 !

! :;

1 GF7 !- 0 -

7 -!

- -!

-! -

7 !

/ 7 !!

!!! !

()

/ 7 - ! - -!

/""0# 1 2 / 0-!

.- ! & ! :

"#$%%&$'();

/ ! !

7 7 GF7 !- 0 -

7 ! 7 0 ! / -!

- !

- -7 - :>-!;

! E

- 81#

1 - GF7 !- 0

1 ! - ! 7

xxx xxx xxx 5.

On behalf of the petitioner:insurance company, it was argued that the hearsay evidence of the widow of the vehicle owner was accepted as the biblical truth by the High Court without any corroboration thereof. This argument was advanced in the context of the deceased vehicle owner having taken a driving skill test of Ujay Pal prior to his employment as a driver.

7 1

+ *

1 *&:

+ , * 9 xxx xxx xxx

As regards the contention that the driver of the vehicle was not duly licensed as he possessed a fake license, it may be noted that neither Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act of 1988 nor the 'Driver Clause' in the subject insurance policy provide that the owner of the insured vehicle must, as a rule, get the driving licence of the person employed as a driver for the said vehicle verified and checked with the concerned transport authorities.

* +

, 9

* =

, 7 * , * 7 +

= , 7 ,

1 7

1 + 7: : = * +

;

7 + * *

1 &:

A 1 9 , 2

# **

B +

;

1 , 1&:

+7 , 1 , ,

5 +

1 1 *

7 2

xxx xxx xxx 14.

5 + 2

! 2 :

7 * , ,

* 7 1

, 7

7 ,

1 * *

, ,

* * 9 1 7

* ,

, ,

* *

, * 9 7

1 , * 9 + +, 7

"8 3 1 *

+ 7

;

, &:

9 , 1

, * 9 Its stand was that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the victim himself. Further, the insurance policy did not require the vehicle owner to undertake verification of the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle by getting the same confirmed with the RTO.

* +

;

* ,

+, 1 ,

* 7

* *

+ C+

* "6 3

1 7

* 9 * *+,

7 9 B 1

+ ,

= +

1 7

+ 7

, *

1 1

1 7 * 1

* &:

A 1

* +, *

;

* 7

3 = , +

;

* ,

The impugned order passed by the Delhi High Court holding to that effect, therefore, does not brook interference either on facts or in law. "D

7 1,

+ 9 1

* +, *

* * 1

* + * * , 1 *

** E 18.

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed." $'

1 - - GF7 !- 0 %

)$ /

GF7 !- 0

7 !

/ 7

-! A!

-! -! -!

/ 7

/ 0-!

7 ! 5

!- ! -!

! 7

1 -

!! 5

/ !

7 7

!! 5 ! - 8D$

8D6 A

-7 -

7 -! -

# /""0# 1 2 / 0-!

!! !- >-! - !

/ - 17 $

/""0# 1 2 / 0-!

- -! - !

/ -!

- - 5 !! "#$%%&$'()

33 3%35'

,570&*%35 0BC'& %5 %6& ,'37%*=00&''%* 3

- - 5 !! "#+(+,$'()

! - GF7 !- 0

- -!

GF7 !- 0 !

+$ !

'!)

+ '

#)6!"

"We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie),

which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20and 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, 5;"8* 6(

, 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." $6

-! H(,F

!! 7

!! 7-

1 GF7 !- 0 %

"D)"6!6$

"59.In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions::

59.1 The two:Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. 59.2 As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. 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.

8#( , *; *=

*(F* 7 ,

, 7 , 1 *(

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 paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

8#6 *

( *

:1 8#D 1 * 7 7 * 8#$2

+ * + *

= 7 2"8+@;+2(+@;

2"8+@;

* 7

*"F

60. The reference is answered accordingly. Matters be placed before the appropriate Bench."

7 - 7

GF7 !- 0

- !

- !!

! !

+$ - !

A :! ;

- 8 %''''5 -

- A!

- E

('C

1 GF7 !- 0 ?5 1

G+

"$)"$!" 7 - !

- -

1 ! -

8 ! - ! 7 "21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi 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,co:operation, 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.

22.

Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world over have recognized 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.

23.

The 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 5. 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 Sethi (supra). 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."

7 -

- 8 +''''5

- -

- ! ! -7 - 5 !

7 7

!! 5 - 7-

!! 5 -

- 8 &&,6''5

I % ,C !

1 0 ! 7-

!! 5 - ! !

- 8 )&'''5 : 7 -

('C

;

8 +''''5 7

- ?-@

A! 7

8 (9'''5 :

! ('C ;

8 (,'''5 7

1 -

8 )'''5 ! -

qawali

- 8 )'''5 ! - 7

7 !

! -!

7 !! 7

- 8 &&,6''5

I % ,C !

- - - !

! A -

: $)

- "# $%%&$'()

!! 5 !

7 -!

:! & "#$%%&$'();

!! 5

"#+(+,$'()

(& '( $'() -

/""0# 1 2 / 0-!

0 - - 2 / 0-!

.-;

- 8 &&,6''5

I % ,C !

- - - !

- !! ,','

:E ;

! A -

!! "# $%%&$'() 7-

!! !

- 8 $,'''5

!! 5 7 7 !

- 8 0

! !

- 8 $,'''5 7 !

1 8 0

- -

),6 ;

14:

. naresh.k/pawan

D !

5 J D ! 7