High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/6510/2015allowed

Savitri Devi & ORS v. Ram Avtar & ORS

2025-09-09Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl15 pages

! "!

##$$ %!& '( !

' !

!!*

+!, -"*

$" .$* ##$$

% /&#*

!# + 01&! 2(#3

5" #! ##$ " 6 $ $( 7" ! 89 "( (& (# 7!

2$( 5!6&$* )"8&$

"!!

!!! :" 5!6&$; 7! & "

'8" '* 8 #$ (!

"&$!

&!! < 0

5" (& (# 6 7! 5!6&$ **= $9 7"

! > ?

@ #

A! ##$$ " &6( 6 8 5!6&$ *= ("

#!#!$3 "&$ " 6 8 0*= ("

1 &6( #! !!

'8" ' (#$ .

!"* 0 9 ! &!* &! !3 # 2&!

##$ # 2&!

2"9!"

5!#! B!89

1 &!"!

&6( $ C& -! #$3!

7 &(6!

($ !$ (# $" '$73 )$ $$ 9!$ C& -! (# & "(* &&$ C& -! ($ #$3! 7! $ 26$ !$3 "! 7! "9"

" '8" ' 69 $ !9 $!3 26$ $" )$ (! " 0*= ("

$!3 7&$ $8$3 " &6$ 7" 7 3!* " $

1 '8" ' $ & 9 & & %$$9 &!,#&!

%$$9 ',,#&!

$$9 "&! !9 *= ("

& 7!8

1 &6( "!

$!3 6!"!

#"3$$3 "## " #"3$ 6$3 6 ?@

$ .!* )"8&$ " 7!8 !

! 3"9 $$ $( 7! # &# '8" '* 7" & " !

! !9 "( #&!# !&9 "&"$ D#

A! ##$$* &##! " !9&(* " !!! ( ! )E " $ !!! &( FD )G FD ) &( "7 .

2( $ &9 #!#! 7" 7 ($

1 &6( $ (#&!

$ ##! &( " 6 &$3 D"6 !!

&!"!

!$ " 6 #$ &# FD ) 0 "7 6!"!

&!9 !6!$ #$3 ?@ #!($3 6$

1 &6( $"&9"* 5!6&$ 6! #$ 6& $ $3 D *= ("

1 &6( 7 6 !&(* "&$ " 6 0*= ("

A! ##$$ " !$ &# ,&9( HI6$ &#!(

!#!

!" #$ % &

&##! " !9&(

1 &6( ##$39 $7 $ 7 HI6$ &#!( * "&$ $ *= ("

A! ##$$ " &!"!

&6( 6 &&! #!# $ !J&! 9 6 9 5!6&$ (& & $ !&( 6 9 7"! "! ! "! $( "&* $ (& & $ !&( "&$ " 6 *GG*=

G<* 0

1 &##! " !9&(* $! ##$$ " $ !$ &# $7 $ 7 HI6$ &#!( $

( ) * !#! '

&( # % %* +

!#! '

%-(%# #.*

!#! '

%.(%. %

A! !# + 01&! 2(#3* "!

"* " &6( 5!6&$ 9! (# &!

" &!$ D# *= &!

" $ $ *= * #! ##$$ ! $(9 (# &!

" $ !&(*

&!$ D# $ D *GG*=* <*= <*= !# $3* "* (& & $ $ "&$ 7! (& 7! & &!$ D# "&$ !& *= <*=

1 &6( $ #! ##$$ ! 89 (&"

"9"!

" &6( (& *= ("

8 $ 5!6&$ & #!

1 !9& #!&$ (!8 6 "!

."$!

2((! D( 7&$ "7 &9 & 9 !3 $ (!8 "!

1 &!"!

&6( /

&#! !$ &# $! ##$$* "! 3! 9 $ 3!

2 &* 7"! #! * ##$$* .

1 &6( !&(* !$ #$ &# /

&#! 89 $ *= ("

A! ##$$* !

89 ! 6, ! $! !# + 0 1&! 2(#3* " &6( ! "!* 7""* 6, &!$ D# "&$ !& *= <*= (& & $ $ 7! 5!6&$ "&$ 8* " 6 &$3 8 ! ##$$

1 # & !&(* "&$ $ <*= ("

' "! &6( $! ##$$ !#!& "!6$7 "Income Rs.18,000/ Future prospects (40%)Rs.7200/ Total IncomeRs.25,200/ Deduction 50%Rs.12,600/ Annual DependencyRs.1,51,200/ Multiplier18 Total Dependency Rs.27,21,600/ Funeral ExpensesRs.18,000/ Loss of EstateRs.18,000/ Loss of consortiumRs.48,000/ x 3= Rs.1,44,000/ Total compensationRs.29,01,600/ Tribunal awardedRs.6,50,000/ EnhancementRs.22,51,600/ Interest 9% Sd/ Ravinder Arora & Neeraj Khanna Advocates Counsel for Appellants."

5" " "! $! #! "

#!& ##!

HI6$ &#!( #!

&#! 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 0%.'0 0%$ % $ (, 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 M5 for 66 to 70 years."

#!&$ 6 7&$ "7 9

3!* (&$#$!

< ##$

5" HI6$ &#!( ,

&#!* " "$ &!

"59.In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions: 59.1 The twoJudge 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 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 paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

$& #* 0 1

2 3 0

$& -* 0 1 10

$& .

1 0 5 0

0 0 6 1

%$78 378 %$78 5 * 0 1

0%9

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

#!&$ 6 ,&9( 7&$ "7 6! HI6$ &#!( ( #!9

&$ $!3 7! &&! #!# $ !J&! 8 ! #!9 #$$3

5" HI6$ &#!(

/ ' ( &!"!

6! "

* &!

" $ !&(* #! ! $ 7! $ !&( &!

" $$ !&(* "$! ! $ #!$ !&(

5 77* #&$ !&( 9

'$ #! ,&9( !#!& "!6$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,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 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."

1 6 ,&9(* # (& 7! "!

"&* (& !&( 7! ( # &# &(6!

$(=$9$ !#!

5" 5!6&$ 9! &!$ D# #! ##$$ & *= $ &( *= & $ $ * "7 !* 9! 3 (& & $ !&(

6, ! $! !# + 01&! 2(#3* # "! 69 ! ##$* $! ##$$* ##! ! "!* " !3 !$3 !& &!$ D# *= <*= " $ $ !3 7"

!# $ $ " !3 $ D <*= $ $7 # #! ##$$

5" (& $( & $ !&(* & "! 69 "! $(* D *GG*=

G<*= 0 $ $ $7 # " 6 #& 6! "

5" #! ##$$ ! $ &&! #!# ! G@ $ ! 7"

$ $7 "! #& #

&!"!* (&$#$!

#! ##$ K<I KI 6 ##$ 5!6&$* ($3

3! 9 (&$#$!

< 7&$ ##$6$ "! #& # $

5" #!(!3 & " ,& "7 (&"

$ "&$ 8 #! 8#9 7

!&( " 6 "9"$9" $! ##$$ 7$$ $! !# + 01&! 2(#3

5" HI6$ &#!( /

&#! 8 $ "! *= ("

$ 9! G@ & &&! #!#

1 * "! 3! 9 $ 3!

2 &

5" $ ! &##! #! ! #! &9 #$3!

$ !9 &! (#&!

#!&$ FD )< 7&$ "7 !9 &! 5! 2(#&!

2((&3 $#( E9 / !( )$3"* (6$ 23 0 ?

0 < ?

7!8 & & 9 &!9 "!

!9 " $ 9 2! )!3

FD )? " 9 #!# ! 2(#&!

F& )!9!(( !! "$ F& H!3 &!9 ( <

6 KI /!

&!"!

FD ) 2! & ! 2&$ 2"$ E$! 2(#&!

5!9 2! "7 #$( 7! B9 "&* "

!# 69 &9 #!#!* !$ &( " 6 #!& !!

FD ) 2!

! & / !( 2$$9 /!$* !

G* )"8&$* !39 '8" ' & .

2(11 7 6!L ($ 1!

2$$9 C& 2(#

FD ) 2!

!39 '8" ' #!# MM%1 H!3 /( !9L H!3 $3(# 9( 587

FD ) FD ) !

! 2! & -&!&8"! B !3 #! 2&$ !39 3!

!# $3* '8" ' #!# B !3 1!

2$$9 5&!( C&

FD )0 2! )!# & )"3 N& -! &!

-"$ 6"3

)N-- H!3 E( #! $ "79 #!# /( -66

FD )G "!

2! & H!3 E( #! $

!39 #!# .86$$

FD )

FD ) ! 2! & / !( 2$$9 /!$* !

G* )"8&$

H!3* "79 #!# + 2(# 3!

5" &( !$ $ 7&$ $!$3 "7 &9 #!#!

)E ! * 7"$ ##!9 76D &!"!

##$ $" )$ $" '$73 )$ $$ 9!$ C& -! (# & "(* &&$ C& -! ($ #$3! 7! $ 26$ !$3

1 &##! !$ * ( 2! FD ) D"6

1 " $ ( !! 6!"!

?@ #!($3 "## 2! & !9!9 ( 6 D"6 FD ) 0

5" "!

$!3 ?

##! 2!

FD ) G

F $ $ ! )E '8" ' 9 9 & & !9 *= ("

(

5" D(" )E ! !#!& "!6$7 "I, Savitri Devi w/o late Sh. Daya Nand, aged 50 years, resident of Vill. Rajjipur, Teh. Kalka Distt. Panchkula, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: That my daughter Rekha Rani died in a roadside accident on 01.08.2013 at the age of 22 years. Her date of birth is 6.10.1991. !0

0 6

% 2 0 2 0 0 0

0 0 1 *

; < 2+ "=

2 2 01 0

21 0 "=

) , ) 2 0"=

0 0"=

0 2 1

1 2 2

2 ) ,

* 2 5 1 0

< 0 1 2 ) , 25 6 "=

* 0 1 ) , 78 2 0 > 2< 1 2 0 2 0 5

My husband had already expired and my son is physically handicap and his physical disability has been assessed 75% by Medical Board Panchkula. He is also not is a condition to work or earn anything.

< 5

0 4 44 0

2 %78

0 2<2 ?

2 0

< 5

0 6

My deceased daughter Rekha Rani was unmarried and she left behind me as her mother, claimant No.2 Anil Kumar aged 32 years as her handicap brother and claimant No.3 Renu Devi aged 24 years as her sister as her only legal representatives and dependents. 2 1 00

0 2 We were having very high hopes from the deceased. We have suffered a great loss of loss of love, affection, care, protection and proper guidance on account of death of my daughter Rekha Rani in this unfortunate accident. I have spent Rs.50,000/ on transportation, funeral and last rites of my deceased daughter."

"* ,&9( HI6$ &#!( /

&#! "9"$9" $! ##!9 !# + 01&! 2(#3 $ 3!

2 & "&* 9 "9"!

&! " .

2( 6 #!

!# !9&( $! 1&! 2(#3 99 &9 (!8* 7&$ !$ HI6$ &#!( ,&9( !$ &# $! ##$$ /

&#! 8 ! (!8 6 &= "!

1 7 6 !&(* " # ,&9( HI6$ &#!( !$ &# $! ##$$

&#! &$$3 &##! #! ##$$

1 ! "! &6( !

89 ! 6, ! $! 1&! 2(#3* ##$$ " $( ("$3 <*= ("

!&( #! 8#9 7 $7 $ 7 HI6$ &#!( /

&#!* !6$ ##!#!

!9$3* $$3 <*= ("

5"&* ##$$ ! $ " (& (# **=

!# ! !* " $3 7!9 ! ! ! ?

@ &(* ! ! $ !6$ #!

-#9 7 6 !&(* #! ##$ #!$3 $$7 7! ( !# + 01&! 2(#3 ! #3 $ (& (# & **= ##$$ $9 7"

! ! ?

@ &( $9 $( # $$ !$ 7" #! 7 (" 3

$$ #9 ($$& ##$* 3* "$$ # 7 6 !!

"#"#"$

Pawan %&'(&')*+',-./01)',*2/'3 '*12 %&'(&'))'+2)(,45' '*12