Memuna And ANR v. Sattar And ORS
!
" #$%$ &' (()
*'
+, *( -
.
/- ,
! "
# $
!
% &&&& .
/- ,0 ( ,
'
( ' ) !
#
*+*%,*,-
#
-%*.**/ #
#
0
-*%,*,*'
1 #
) )
( , 2
)
#
' )
0
,
3***/
4
)
(
!!"
0
$ )1
5 6)(
# 1 )
0 0
) 0
1
4
1
0 0
5 1 # *7../
) 0
1
4 )
8
)
*9
1
)
:+**/
)
+***/
4
)
# #
-.***/# ;
)
# 1
-****/
)
4 )
%,3%-+/
)
<39 ) 4
#
#)1
5 6)(
# $ % &#
' ()(
$*%" ))+ #, )( - .
/ -
$0%" ))"1
3 4 # , )( - .
+
#
)
$1%1 ))! %
#
)
)1
%
) # "FAO NO.3823/24 Enhancement Date of accident: 14/3/20 Age - 17 years 8 months Income - 9000 10788 Dependent - Two Two Future Prospects - 40% 40% Deduction - 50% 50% Loss of Estate - 15000 16500 Funeral - 15000 16500 Consortium - 40,000 48000 x 2 = 96000 10788 x 12 x 18 + 40% = 1631145 Total :
1631145 + 33000 + 96000 = 1760145 1760145 - 1430800 = 329345 Enhancement 4 329345 + (Interest) Ashish Gupta Advocate for claimants."
- 2
!
%4 ( 1
)
) )1
18 )
) #
):9 + (
)
)
)
0
)1
#
#
)
8
)1
: 5 =)( / -
5 > ?
-
"59.In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:4 59.1 The two4Judge 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.
59.4 In case the deceased was self4employed 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 paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
+ Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 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. 15,000/4, Rs. 40,000/4 and Rs. 15,000/4 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
60. The reference is answered accordingly. Matters be placed before the appropriate Bench."
7 5 =)( 2 3 4 #, )( -.
5 $ ( %
)
) #
'
#
#
)
$
) # "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.
( # 3 ##- 6 (
3 #
(6 7 8 68
##8 ( 3(6#6 ( -
: - ( 66
6 - 93 ##
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."
! #
# 6 ( ( 6
# 6
#
# 3 6
# 3 :
3- ( 6 #-6 '
3 3-6 ( #
# 3 # 6 )
# # 6 # 66 (
( # 6 #- 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.
2
# 76
##3 #
( 3# 6 6 # 6 3 #
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
7 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." . 4
)
$
# #
# #
)
/
3 (
$( %
0
#
#)1
5 6)(
@;
7-
:
4# 2 <
( $% ) $) #%!1 #
@ / / :
( ,+ )
)
/
) 0
# 1 )
0 0
) 0
1
'
$
"6.
The first issue which requires consideration is as to what amount could be assessed as monthly income of the deceased who was admittedly three years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal had taken yearly income of the deceased as Rs.50,000/4 while assessing the compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of / (Supra), while examining the case of a six years old child and after taking
. into consideration the law laid down in the case of ; 7-
:
4# (Supra), had observed that while assessing the income, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman, in the concerned State, is required to be taken into consideration in the case of a deceased child, as the deceased child would be able to earn the same on becoming a major. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:4 "& )
# 14.
Coming to the case of the deceased child, we are not inclined to accept the reasoning of the Tribunal on the yearly income. Recently, in ;
7-
:
4# 2 <
))# )!"*, J. B.R. Gavai, writing for the bench, has elaborated that:
"29. This Court in the case of Kajal (supra) has held that taking notional income is not the correct approach. Instead, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in the concerned State has to be taken into consideration because, that would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. In this case, the minimum wage payable to a skilled workman in the State of Delhi at the time of the accident, i.e., 2nd June 2009, was Rs. 4,358/4 per month." (Emphasis supplied)"
* 4
# 1 )
0 0
# *7../
)
1
'
8 ;
)
0 :+**/
#
+***/
1
#
3:***/ >-.***8,? ;
)
#
' )
1 #
-****/
1
/
%,3%-+/ A
3
(
1 #
<7+9
#
)
#
)
1 #
#
*+*%,*,-
!
%4 ( 1
1
%,3%-+/
/ #
7+9
1
8#0
1
)
# * 1#2 0 ) .
/- ,
naresh.k
0 / B
) B