High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/768/2014allowed

Sis Ram Etc v. Jasbir Singh

2025-04-22Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl23 pages

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL !

"# !$#%

"# !

&' "# VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL) ($)*

+ ,

+ +

/0 / 1

2 3 #/ /0 5

6/1 0/1

%& ' !$ + ,

2 +46+1 # 2 5 "

2 " " 2 2

&"() !$'

, *, $

- #) !$' %% !$'

+ 2 82 #

& 4

9/6:/;6 5 /

2 (

# '

2 2 #

& 4

& 4" 2 2

(

# 5 2

=/+ ! 7 2 =/ =/1 7

=/+ '

-( 1+ +

4;" 1/" 114 4 ( , 2 2

5 5 2

=/+" #

5 '

# (

=/+"

' +

2 '

5 1 2

1 (

" -( 1+ +

5 >

)>/

-( 2 2 5 2

2 + # -( 2

++ "

2 2 (

# "

# 5

2 2 #

(

5 &

# (

/ )>/ 2 2 #

' (

2 5 #

-("

(

% @ , (

Bimla Devi & Ors.

vs. Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors. 2009 (13) SCC 530.

" 2 2

2 2 " 2

5 &

+ 7

# #

2 5 #

2 "Sis Ram and others ...Appellants v.

Jasbir Singh

...Respondent

APPELLANT HEREIN :

CLAIMANTS DATE OF ACCIDENT :

04.04.2012 NATURE OF CASE :

DEATH AGE OF DECEASED :

35 years INSURANCE:

NO INSURANCE DETAILS OF RELIEF CLAIMED DETAILS Compensation claimed as per judgments of Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi & Magma General Insurance Income Monthly : Rs.4,500 Annual : Rs.54,000 Deduction 1/4th : Rs.13,500/6 Future Prospects 40% of (54,000 - 13,500) = Rs. 16,200 Multiplier Loss of Estate Rs.15,000 (accident in 2012) Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000 (accident in 2012) Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 (accident in 2012) x 4 dependents = Rs.1,60,000 Total Compensation [(54,000 + 16,200) x 3⁄4 x 16] +15,000 + 15,000 + 1,60,000 = Rs.10,97,200 Interest 9%

Sd/6 Anmol Partap Singh Mann (P/1679/2009) Dated: 23.04.2025 Name & Signatures of Advocate with P.No.98150610265"

0 7

+";4"3/

5 (

2 2

5 @ ,

Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121" National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others

(2017) 16 SCC 680" Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others (2018) 18 SCC 130 &"() !$'

, *, $

*0! &12&#3 && '%*!2 !$ 4 7

" "

2 2 # (

# =/+ 2

# # 2

2 2 # 2 2 2

5 #

(

5 '

=/+

2 2 2

(

# 2

2 2

/ (

# 2

5 2

# 2

2 2

(

# !

4'#'

!2 ,#!2#!"'

6 &

' &

; (

" & 4

9/6/:/;6 2 2 5

" 2

# # 2

& 5 ?

+ 5 5 &

(

+ # 1+1

2 "1. Whether death of Parvinder alias Parminder took place in road accident on 4.4.2012 in the area of adda Mehtiana and whether said accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Tata6407 bearing registration No.PB6086K69825 by respondent No.1? If so its effect? OPP"

+ (

+ 2

# ! : 2 #

9/ 1/C/0;

2 5 ! 6 1 ! " & 4

9/6/ :/;6

#5 " 2 2

5 #

% 2

% " ( 2 '

2 #

D D

2 2

5 ! 7

, 7 2 2 5 #

5 2 #

++ ( 2

" 5 '

2 2 #

2 ' 2

2 2 #

# 5 5 &

=/+ ! 7 2 5 2

" 2 5

/ + 2

/ 2

2 2

5 " ! ! : 2

& 4 2 2

# ' 5

% # 5

( 2

(

=/+ 5

# 5 ' & #

5 =/ =/1 2 >

" 2 2 5 2

# 2 # & 4 2 2 2 #

" 2 2

# 2

2 #

' + & 2

" 2

2 =/+ &

=/+

# & >

/ =/+ 2

2 "RW1. Statement of Jasbir Singh aged 45 Yrs. son of Tarlochan Singh, r/o VPO Jamsher PS Sadar, District Jalandhar in the form of affidavit.

AFFIDAVIT I, Jasbir Singh the above named deponent do hereby solemnly declare and affirm as under:6

1. That the deponent purchased the second hand Tata 407 bearing registration No. PB68K69825 about 3⁄4 years back and is the owner of the said vehicle. On 5;4;2012 the deponent was going to Ludhiana from Hoshiarpur and at about 12 noon

when he reached near police station Mehtiana he stopped the vehicle and started taking tea near by police station. In the meantime a hot talk took place between the deponent and the passer;bye who was also taking tea on the same stall. In the meantime one Havaldar and constable known to that person came at the spot and caught hold the deponent and took the deponent to the police station along with the vehicle of the deponent. The deponent was kept in the police station for two hours illegally and thereafter he was released on surety which was arranged by the deponent from Hoshiarpur.

2. That later on the deponent came to know that the police of police station Mehtiana has wrong and illegally involved the vehicle of the deponent in a FIR No. 31 dated 5;4;2012 under section 279, 304A, 337, 427 IPC. The vehicle of the deponent never met with an accident with Parwinder as alleged in the FIR. The deponent was falsely implicated in this case. Deponent I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm that my above declaration is true, that it conceals nothing and that no part of it is false.

Deponent xxx xxx xxx RW1 Jasbir Singh, aged 36 years (mentioned 45 years in affidavit), son of Tarlochan Singh son of Gurdass Ram, Resident of VPO Jamsher Khas, Police Station Sadar, District Jalandhar (Respondent No. I as his own witness) On SA I tender into evidence my duly sworn affidavit Ex.R1 which may be read as part of my examination in chief. xxx.n.Sh. Kuldip Singh, counsel for claimants.

I purchased the vehicle bearing No.PB08;K;9825 about four years back from today. I do not know remember the name of the person from whom I have purchased the abovesaid vehicle. I got the said vehicle transferred in my name at the time of its purchase four years ago. I stayed at 3.00/4.00 PM for taking tea at Tea Stall of Palli, situated ahead from Mehtiana Adda. I do not know the names of the passers by who were sitting at the Tea stall. I do not know the name of Constables who came present at the spot. I was taken to Police Station Mehtiana by police at 4.30 PM where I remained for two hours. I was let off by the police to bring surety. Daljit of Hoshiarpur stood surety for me. I do not know father's name and address of Daljit.

It is correct that case under Section 304;A IPC is pending against me and I have been released on bail in that case. The same is pending in court of Ms. Ekta Uppal, Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur. However, I do not remember the next date fixed in that case. It is correct that I have got released my abovesaid vehicle on Sapurdari from the trial court. The said vehicle is in my possession at present. It is correct that I have sold the said vehicle during the pendency of the case. It is correct that the abovesaid vehicle was not insured. Volt. I did not sell the abovesaid vehicle. It is correct that summons of this case was served upon me when I came to appear before the trial court in criminal case. It is correct that summons of this petition goes to me on my above mentioned address.

It is wrong to suggest that I used to send back the summons with report of wrong address falsely. I did not move any application before any higher police officer or before any court regarding registration of false case against me. Volt. I came to know about the criminal case when I received the summons from court.

rash and negligent driving of my vehicle. Volt. no accident took place with my vehicle. It is wrong to suggest that I have sworn a false affidavit just to avoid giving compensation to claimants. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely."

# # 2 2 =/ +

/ + + 2

! "

# 2 #

5 " @# ,

" 2 2 '

# '

2 2

5 '

2 5

-( 1+ + (

" =/+ 5 1 3 " 5 '

2 '

1 " 2 2 "

5 2

5 % (

# % 2

5 ( 2 =/+

# , # 5

5 '

5 =/+ 2 2

' 2

5" 2 # +

2 2 '

5 1

& 5

-( )> +1

-( )> 2 2 -( 2

+ ++ !

-( 2 2 2

5 5 2

! 7 2 #

+ ! &

1 !

# + " 2

" ?

5" 2

+ "

5 5

2 #

2 ' # & 5

# #

(

2 # 2 2

!#" # =/+"

# 5 "

-("

5 '

5 , 2

(

# #

" 2 2

" 2 '

5 !#" # % 2 2

5 2

=/+

# 5 5 "

# 2 '

# + & @ ,

Bimla Devi & Ors.

(supra)

# 5

" , '

2 ?

5 5

( 2

# A

( " @ , 2 # 2

2 2

5 2 5

2 5 #

& @ ,

# 5 #

" 2 2 2

' &

" #

5 #

2 '

# " % @ , >

# 2

& # %

2 "12. .......It is, therefore, difficult to believe the story of the driver of the bus that he slept in the bus and in the morning found a dead body wrapped in a blanket. If the death of a constable has taken place earlier, it is wholly unlikely that his dead body in a small town like Dharampur would remain undetected throughout the night particularly when it was lying at a bus stand and near a police station. In such an event, the court can presume that the police officers themselves should have taken possession of the dead body.

Xxx xxx xxx 14.

Some discrepancies in the evidences of the claimant's witnesses might have occurred but the core question before the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as to whether the bus in question was involved in the accident or not. For the purpose of determining the said issue, the Court was required to apply the principle underlying burden of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act as to whether a dead body wrapped in a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early hour, which was required to be proved by the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

15.

In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of

probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."

+ (

# #

+ #

# /

+0 &

5 &

=/+

2 5

( 2 #

# 2 2 2

# " 5

2 ' # 2 2 2 5 !#"

/ 2 2

/ )> # 5

' & "

" # 5 2 #

5 " # #

& ?

5 2

5 2 #

" 2

(

" ' &

# &

+4 )#

5 2

# =/+ 2 &

5 (

& 4

5 ' 5 '

-( )> ' ' '

( 5" =/+ #

# 5 '

/ =/ + ' 2

/ "

5 =/+ ' ' 5 2 2

(

2 #

" 2

5 #

(

2 ' +6 =

2 "

2 # % @ , 5

& @ ,

Sarla Verma's caseE F

"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 Thomas, 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 M617 for 26 to 30 years, M;16 for 31 to 35 years, M615 for 36 to 40 years, M614 for 41 to 45 years, and M613 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M611 for 51 to 55 years, M69 for 56 to 60 years, M67 for 61 to 65 years and M65 for 66 to 70 years."

# 2 2 1 5 "

+; & @ ,

Pranay Sethi's case E F"

"59.In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:6 59.1 The two6Judge 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 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 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/;, Rs. 40,000/; and Rs. 15,000/; 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."

# % 2 2 2

# 5 @ , 5

2 2

2 2 #

% 32 /5 > 5 & @ ,

Magma General Insurance Company Limited's case (Supra)

" 2

& 2 2"

# # %

2 "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,co6operation, 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." ( # % "

"3/ 2

2 2

3 # + ( # 2 # %

2 2

5 # 2 ( 2

" 2 2 1 5 " 2

1"3/

, , '2 2

(

" >

=/ =/1 2 ( 5

=/ =/1 2

3/ 3 3/

5" 2

5 2

# #

2 2 3/ " 2

& +0 5 2 1 5 )#

5" "

2 2 2

5 @ , (

, &

" /

+";4"3/ =

5 2

" 2

1 :

# 2 # "

2 &

+";4"3/

5 & 2 2 "

1" 2 B

" E F 2 B

+ " 2

" 2 %

5 1B E+B F

" 2 5

2 #

89 :;

%&# < /= = '

3 G 3$ = G 3$