Janki Devi & ANR v. Sharanjeet Singh & ORS
!
"# # $
!
%&'( # )*+,( -.+ &'
! " # $ %& %'
#( )
* %& +
#
%& + ,-.
&/)
0 -.+ &'/ )#
' 0$1
2
& +
& 3+$
& '
& 3/!/+&
+ 0+- 0
+
4
& % ' & 0 50
++ % ) '
0+- 0
+
&
! 5 + 50+
)+ & * %''
0 + )+ % ' &
& &&
+ )&0& && &
50
, 66%' & &'
'
50 ,
'
50 ,- .
& % + & ) &
&&
+
&+ ,% ' + & &'
'
50 ,
'
50 ,-% 5 2 5 + 50 &
+
&) + )
%-%3677502
- $ &
+
5)
& %#&& /
)2
%$
% ' 0
&)+
3%6667%
) & %
' &)'
+
+)
'
)
)'
)+)
' 8%367.
&) 5 ' 0
3%6667) . 5
%&
%
9 5
%6667% ' % '%
9 9 + ++
&) 5
. 2
0
&
&&
++ &
&&
++&
)
)
&&
+ &)
+: ++& ' .
)
+ %6;%<667 5
&
=> 5&
& )
+) ++
+&
) + 0) .
+ ) % &
+
-
'
'
50( ?5
)/
&
%
! " # $%
%& '
!
( ( $ $) < $ &
+ ,-.
&/)
0%'
)
&
0% 5 5 5
'+ '
'
) +50&
+
%5 '
=;>5
=> 3 2 / &
+
5 ; ( @5
)/
<+*
5
" "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 +$ + & & +, , , 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, M"11 for 51 to 55 years, M"9 for 56 to 60 years, M"7 for 61 to 65 years and M"5 for 66 to 70 years." + 5' ' + +0 % +8 5 8 2( @5
)/
" *
%
<
" "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.
, -
.+/ +0 1 +-2+ 3 3 . . .3. &+- 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.
, + 3
3 3 . & - +
&
, #&+ 3 3+ &
, $( 3+& 5 1 1 + 1+ +
0 3 ( ,16/1( -16/ ( ,16/ 5 +
3 +2 5
60. The reference is answered accordingly. Matters be placed before the appropriate Bench."
+ 5
) ' ' '
550( @5
)/ +)& + &
0
&)+& '
+ &'
A
5
&
& '
& + & 0+
'
& ''
)
57'+)0 + 9 02& &
<+
) +*
'
)
+ 6%6667 &
)0+ % +&
)+
9 '
) ' &A
5
& +6>
00 6 2( @5
)/
%&'
! * + 5
& %
++&
)% +& 5 +&
)
++ &
)% & &
) 2 '
'% &
) 5
+
) &
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.
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,co"operation, 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." .
5
) %
)
+ <6%6667 &'
+
+&
% )
+ &
) '
)
)5 + &
7 2 /
& +B +
45 - # 6 5 4 +
45 C%
4D%& 366<%
=3>%' & +
5
& - $ &
+
'+ 5
+ &
& & )
&% & %' & &
5'"
8 "Janki Devi and another
Versus
Sharanjeet Singh and others Date of Accident:
27.02.2017 Name of Deceased: "
Rahul Kumar Age of Deceased:
17 years Number of Claimants: " 3 a) Mother :
Janki Dvi b) Father:
Lekshwar Ram c) Unmarried sister Radha Kumari (claim qua her dismissed) 3
.
7/ Income:
Rs.5,000/" PM, Rs.60,000/" yearly Multiplier:
'18'
Personal Expenses:
Rs.2,000/"
Loss of Income after Multiplier: Rs.6,48,000/" Future Prospects:
NIL Cremation:
Rs.15,000/"
Loss of Love & Affection:
Rs.10,000/"
Medical Expenses:
Rs.50,250/"
Interest from date of filing:
7.5% Total:
( #1)1,6/ 7/ Income: (Minimum Wages semi"skilled) Rs.8,250/" PM, Rs.99,000 yearly Multiplier:
'18'
Personal Expenses:
Rs.4,125/", Rs.49,500/" yearly Loss of Income after Multiplier: Rs.8,91,000/ " (Rs.49,500 x 18) Future Prospects:
40% After future prospects:
Rs.12,47,400/"
Cremation:
Rs.18,000/"
Loss of Love & Affection:
Rs.18,000/"
Loss of Consortium :
Rs.48,000 x 2 = Rs.96,000/"
Medical Expenses :
Rs.50,250/"
Total :
Rs.14,29,650/"
Less :
Rs.7,23,250/"
Amount to be enhanced:
( #11-6/ Interest from date of claim petition : 7.5%"
< 2 & &50 &
+
&&
& '
'%
) & %
&) + & '
36667) %' %
&'
)
' % %)
)'
) 5 0
& 8%367' & & 5
9 '
&& %''
% 5 ' 0
%6667502
%' % ) 5
<%37, )
++ & ' +&
)'
502
%
& 5 &&0) 2 )
+ &)
+
++& '
&+
' &&
% 8%6667 5
% ' 3 *
' 5
+ &
& & )
&% 0 '
6<68 ) +
,- & 0
)
+ &) +
)
+ %6;%<667
+3>
)+) ++
+&
+ &
0) '
+ 9' +) 0 )789 "/ $
-.+ &' naresh.k
)*(
E
7 " F E 5" ,