High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/5354/2006allowed

Rama Chand And Others v. Shanker And Others

2024-11-29Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma14 pages

!$%&%"'( ")!*+!, -.

/* 0 *!&1 '2 " 1!,& 00000033!44'

& 5&0 /1'6!, '2 " 1!,& 000000!&3"'2!'

& ( 7 8 /0 / / /

! " / /

'( )* '))+

++ -

(** . / 01

" , #$

. 2 #$ 21

,,$

% ,

/ '

'5 ) '))5

. 1 %%

$ % %

6 78 9(* &

% & , &

# $ % %

)9:+ $%

;% ;

% , ,% ,

% = !

%% % #

' )9:+

3, :

?, % #$ , &% 1.

Whether the motor vehicle accident that took place on 2512005 is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of truck No.HR12GA0746 by respondent no.1 Shankar? OPP.

Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation for the death of Rajender Singh in the aforesaid accident, if so, in what amount? OPP.

Whether respondent No.3 is entitled to repudiate the contract of insurance on the grounds alleged ? OPR3 4.

Relief.

% %

#$ , , 6 3

% ,

/ /// 8

/8/ / + @

, &

%% %

64 ' )9'+

, $ %

! ",

$ ,

( %

"8.

The first version of the accident is found in FIR (Ex.P2) which was recorded on 2552005 at 9.30 a.m. The informant is one Balwant Singh who was driving the motorcycle (Hero Honda Splendour Plus) No. MH31BK7398 and was hit by some vehicle. Number plate No. HR12GA0268 was lying at the spot. Rajender Singh had succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The informant has not been examined by the claimant; instead Tara Chand and Raj Pal have been examined as part of the oculatory account. Raj Pal (PW4) and Tara Chand (PW5) have not been able to convince their presence. Raj Pal (PW4) was subjected to pointed crossexamination. His version is not convincing. He had not taken the Injured to the hospital or to any other private doctor. He had also left the injured at the spot despite the fact that he was a covillager. He has mentioned that he was not present at the spot but had given the registration number of the truck and the name of the driver to the police.

9. Deposition of Tara Chand (PW5) is on no better footings. Despite the fact that deceased was his nephew in relationship, he had neither supported him by getting him medical aid nor had gone to the police station for lodging the FIR. He had also not taken Rajender Singh to any hospital or to any doctor. He had not given any chase to the alleged offending driver. Thus deposition of Tara Chand (PW5) is highly inconvincing. Had Raj Pal and Tara Chand been present at the spot, both of them could not have left the injured at the spot.

10.

Deposition of Dr. Karan Singh (PW1) reveals that dead body was identified by Rajesh and Kuldeep. Had Raj Pal and Tara Chand been there, they were to be with the victim but it is not the case. Thus death of Rajender Singh vide PMR is true but it has not been established.

From the totality of facts and circumstances, it is clear that Truck No. HR12GA0726 was involved which had been introduced merely to get compensation. Statements of Raj Pal and Tara Chand PWs reveal that they are introduced witnesses. Their crossexamination reveals that hollow standing as witnesses. Merely because the number plate No. HR12GA0268 was found at the place of accident, is no ground to raise presumption. The Investigating Officer HC Om Parkash (PW2) had taken the truck in possession on 2812005. When crossexamination became grilling on him, he admitted that no eyewitness at the spot had given registration number of the offending vehicle as also the name of the driver. The accident is of 2512005 when the spot was visited by the Investigating Officer neither Raj Pal (PW4) nor Tara Chand (PW5) had met him.

It was only on 2712005 that he had met the Investigating Officer and his statement was recorded. His supplementary statement was recorded on 2812005. Thus the vehicle is introduced one at the instance of the Investigating Officer. The claimants have badly failed to establish that death of Rajender Singh was caused by negligent driving of truck No. HR 12GA0726. Thus this issue is answered against the petitioner."

)

$ &

@ #$

% ,

?!4 .AB '1

? =

B ,

,, AB

,, $

B ,

C '

6 $% % ?!4 % % ?!4

'* '5 ) '))5

'9(3):

6 ?!4

B ,

C :

B ,

C 5 $

& &

, ,

, ?!4 &

@ #$ ,%

' )'+*

!% % < 6"

B ,

C '

'* ) '))5 ,

6 , %

C '

% %

64 ' )'+* ,$

'* ) '))5 ,

# , "

& %

6 ,

.C :

C 5 6

B , '( ) '))5

,$ $ $ ,

6 78 9(*

B , '( ) '))5

% @ #$

, .C :1

.C 51

$ " #$ 0 %

% &

, C :

.C 51 &

$ ,

& ,

$ 0 .C :1 $

& #$ 0 %

$ B

.C :1 "

! &

$ % %

@ #$ ,%

$ "

' )'+*

+ <

$ %

'( )* '))+

@ #$

, ,

, 0 %

"D "

$ % $ $ %

% $

4 *)))3 ,

6& ,

% %

, $ #$ %

, $

4 )))3 ,

,,, % $ &

$ :

+ $

% ,

( 60$

, " Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another ;

/<3,!*!

"<, &!& = &

, ,

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 onethird (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, onefourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and onefifth

(1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

31. Where 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.

32. Thus 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 nonearning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to onethird and contribution to the family will be taken as twothird. * * * * * *

42. We 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 M17 for 26 to 30 years, M16 for 31 to 35 years, M15 for 36 to 40 years, M14 for 41 to 45 years, and M13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M11 for 51 to 55 years, M9 for 56 to 60 years, M7 for 61 to 65 years and M 5 for 66 to 70 years.

') 60$

, "

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. ;

> =

+* -

(** &%

.1 =

% B , , F .71

, %

% F ."1 %

% ,F .=1 4 $ %

, ,

B &

F .A1 ?

% &

, $F , B

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 factcentric or quantumcentric.

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 selfemployed (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."

60$

, " ?* !'!,4 '&<,'$!

"*3'@ 8%*% !2 5&0 '< * 4%& 1<1,< * 1!,& ;

> > / =

/,4 5!,*

&<3,

,'@ /! 1%

/<3,

% % ,

4 ,

"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 husbandwife 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.

22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions worldover 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.

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. 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. 8 ''

! & &

60$

, "

$ %,

'( )* '))+

6 ", &

4 )))3 '

? :)H 4 '))3 .:)H )))1 '

= & B

4 )5) .I :'))1 # !,

4 5)3 :

+ =

4 +):*))3 .

5)J +J '1 + @ A 4 *)))3 ? AB 4 *)))3 * @ ",

4 :*)))3 J

4 (')))3

4 :*)))3 J

" 4 "*3!'& %"'

4 *'*))3 '

60$

, " Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma

- 9

R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

/<3,!*!

"<, &!& 9.

% (H

, ,

, , % ;

! ",

, ,

#$ &

& , ,

#$ $

, ,

3 3

'5 ! ",

%, '+ =

'9 %

/ /

")!*+!, -.

%3 %