Harbans Lal And ANR v. Dilbagh Singh And ANR
!"!
#$ %& &'
($ )* (& + , -+ * Present:- Mr. Anil Kumar Spehia, Advocate for the appellants.
None for respondent No.1.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, and Ms. Tanya Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.2. , -+ *.
& /*0
!"
!
!
"# ! !"# $ "
% & ""
'
#(
) *
) + , -./(!
" "
""
$ "0 " -1.2
!!
+ "$ $
+ % 3
+ "$
$ 3.
. .
" !
#
"
) !"# $ "
% (
/))4
$
+
"5 ! #
"" !!
! -)4
"" !
!
"5
"
) + " $ !
$ 6%
!
#!
)
"" "
!" $ !$
!
# %) !
% 1)4 #
!"
!'
7 "! '
8 !) " ) 9
$ " # % #' )+ , -1.
, !'
7 "! '
8# $
$ ) %&'() "
$ , " %*+ + 8), - !5
! 2))4
+ $! $
$ % ;
#'
"
. $& $' /. 0* * &
%' + ) 1 . $*2 $ (2 & 3'+ + )
# $ 4. $*2 $ 1 )$ . )$ & ' 5
" ! 3.5
"'#
%)
) #
"
)
"" !!" #)$ " %(
) ))4)$ ) "
!
) !
12)4"
$"
#
""
)
! )4 "5 !
!
/)4 " "" !!
< (
! .6)4)$ ) , ) $ " + "
%
" !
)!
<
"
#
-)45 ! "
"#) "# " %
$ " $
+
% $
!
! ) )
! )64 $ "
)
% %(
" !
)
)0
+ $ ," ! 3.$ "!" #
!
< )
+ "
) +
!$ " " = "DOA 18.09.2016 Offending vehicle Car PB CU 0985 11.00 a.m.
Claim petition u/s 166 of the M.V. Act Deceased Sunita Rani Age 54 years Occup.
Tuition, business of selling bed sheets as well as housewife Income Rs.19,000/ p.m.
Claimant:
(1) Husband Harbans Lal (2) Son Gaurav $ 20 .
Income as house wife :
Rs.4,500/ p.m.
Rs.54,000/ p.a.
M LoC 1 Lakh F.E Rs.25,000/
Medical Exp Rs.25,000/
Total Rs.07,44,000/ interest : 6% 6 $ Income Rs.9,000/ p.m., Rs.1,08,000/ p.a.
Multiplier Rs.9,000 x 12 x 11 = Rs.11,88,000/
LoC Rs.48,000/ each = Rs.13,45,000/
LoE Rs.18,000/
F.E Rs.18,000/
Medical Exp.
Rs.25,000/
By Tribunal = Rs.7,44,000/
Enhancement = Rs.6,01,000/
Interest = 9%"
6 ( '
" !
0 2 #'
.! . $7
+ = "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 M 17 for 26 to 30 years, M 16 for 31 to 35 years, M 15 for 36 to 40 years, 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, # " ""2, M 9 for 56 to 60 years, M 7 for 61 to 65 years and M 5 for 66 to 70 years."
/ !
+$$ !
!6%
)
6 # ! - ( #'
(2 7
) = "59.In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
59.1 The two Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. 59.2 As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. 59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
59.4 In case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 89 9 9 "
+ 2 . 2 $ $* The established income means the income minus the tax component.
59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall
2 be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
"%+0 . $.*. .. 0 . . $ 9 * * : $ "%30 . **.2 $.*. "%) . , . ;$.2;.
;. $ .<* . )";
=;)
;
=)";
=*,.20 $ . 8 ,2 2
60. The reference is answered accordingly. Matters be placed before the appropriate Bench."
1 !
+ , $ $ $ + % #' !# "
!
"
%
"#!" $
! "$
>
0
"
"
$ "
!
"
%!
$ " $$ +
#
, 4$ !#% !
<
%("
"
.!, ! . $7
$ +
! /)4 " + #%! ) !" # !
< $ # $ " >
"
!?
+ % %
( #'
# $4. $*2$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.
* . $ ..2 * . * 9 9 .. 9 $* ,, * . > $*2;
2; * ;
; ,2 : .. !
(. $ .* *$ *; . >*. ;
* ;
; 2; *.; !
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.
0 # . .. . $ * , . ,$ $.;
.$ 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. (. $9 .9 . *$ , .
9? ,9 $* 5. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
24.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium."
+
, )
! )4 "$
!
!"
) !
" #
$ # # !
"
#
4
+ . ( + "
" %
" !
+
% ) $ " #
) $ 0
"#!"
1
(!" #)!
!
< +
%
+
+ "
@+ # "
"%
" $ " 0
"# !" ) $ +
(
0
"#!" )64
!!
" + " %$ !
+
<
+#
! $ + $
"#) " $
< 0
"
(
!
"#$
%"# + "$ "$ 0 % " ) $ "" !
+
"
(
"
"
% B % '
7 "! '
7 &*'( +
!
, "
$= "3.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even while noticing that the income of a skilled worker in 2012 was approximately 8000/ the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as 9000/ . As per him once the notional income had been taken a deduction had to be made for personal expenses. This argument is flawed. In @ 9 , A reported as 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 673 (where the accident had taken place in 1981) the Hon'ble Supreme Court evaluated the contribution of a house wife at 3000/ per month. The accident in the present case took place after 23 years. In my considered opinion to tag a house wife as a 'skilled worker' alone does not do complete justice to her multifarious role as a home manager. Keeping in view the
lapse of 23 years between the accident in the case of @ 9 and the present accident and my conclusion that a house wife is something more than a mere skilled worker it would not be unreasonable to estimate the contribution of the deceased in the present case at a higher figure. On the whole I see no reason for reducing the quantum."
+
"
) ! %
, ! #'
8@ 9 A !)
& '))&,.'+35)'
7 " "
#" " ! 1)4
"# %(
$
""
"$ $ $ ! >
# !
##
5
"
) ""
0 "
%
..)$ )
"
) ""
0 " -1.2( 9
, # -1.(
7 "
# $ 7&*' $ ),7&*' + !$,
"
!
7&*' 6 + $! $
$
+
, ) "
#!
!!"
"#! " 1)4 #
""
"$ $ 2 C
+ $
+
!
"
"
"#
")
% $
#
-./ # !
3.5
"'#
%
" %
!"# ! 2))4
$
!/6?
#!
# !!
!"
#
! " %# $
! <$0!
# % 123 %.
'
/, -+ *0 naresh.k
A
= D A
= D