Allahabad High Court
Smt. Raj Rani And Another vs Chhedi Lal And Another on 3 September, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 1804
Author: Anil Kumar
Bench: Anil Kumar, Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Judgment Reserved Court No. - 3 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 473 of 2012 Appellant :- Smt. Raj Rani And Another Respondent :- Chhedi Lal And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Nilish Anand,Virendra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,Tahir Abbas Rizvi Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
(As per Saurabh Lavania,J.) Heard Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
Under appeal is the judgment and award dated 09.02.2012, passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow (in short "Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 16/2004 (Smt. Raj Rani and others v. Cheddi Lal and another).
The instant appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation awarded in the award/judgment, under appeal, dated 09.02.2012, passed in Claim Petition No. 16/2004 (Smt. Raj Rani And others v. Cheddi Lal And Another).
The undisputed facts of the case are that the husband of the appellant No. 1 late Lallan Razak was the driver of the Indica Car bearing Registration No. B.R.- 3B-1011. When he was plying the Indica Car/on the way to P.S.- Navada Ara, District- Bhojpur, Bihar from Lucknow, U.P. he met with an accident at Gram- Hauj, PS- Jafrabad, District-Jaunpur with the Bus of UPSRTC bearing Registration No. U.P. 65-R-2783. On account of the accident, the husband of the appellant No. 1 expired on the spot. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered as Crime No. 432/2003, under Sections 279, 304A, 227, 338 IPC at PS-Jafrabad, District-Jaunpur. Thereafter, the appellant No. 1 along with the daughter and mother of the deceased, filed the Claim Petition No. 16/2004, which was contested by the opposite party No. 2-UPSRTC.
Before the Tribunal, after exchange of pleadings, the parties led their evidence and the Tribunal after considering the aforesaid found the accident and the death to be proved. On the the issue of negligence, the Tribunal recorded its finding to the effect the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. the driver of the Indica Car namely late Lallan Razak and the Driver of Bus of UPSRTC namely Cheddi Lal were negligent. In regard to income of the deceased late Lallan Razak, husband of the appellant No. 1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was earning 3000/- per month.
On the basis of finding on income i.e. Rs. 3000/- per month, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and after due deduction, awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,01,500/-
Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the findings of the Tribunal nor disputed the monthly income assessed/taken into account by the Tribunal i.e. Rs. 3000/- per month for the purpose of enhancement of compensation. However, for enhancement of compensation, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the principles settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another; 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.) as well as in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 4 TAC 673 (SC) and submitted that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the principles for grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the multiplier has wrongly been applied and the amount towards the future prospects, as approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court, has not been granted by the Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in granting the meagre amount towards conventional heads i.e. the loss of estate, loss of consortium and the funeral expenses.
Learned counsel for the respondent-UPSRTC could not dispute the legal proposition settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments and the fact that in heads, as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, the compensation awarded is not in accordance with the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record particularly the reasons and findings recorded by the Tribunal in the judgment and award, under appeal, dated 09.02.2012.
In the undisputed facts, which have already been indicated hereinabove, we find that in absence of any proof of income, the Tribunal has rightly considered the monthly income of the deceased late Sri Lallan Razak @ Rs. 3000/- per month.
We further find that the Tribunal has erred in granting the meagre amount towards conventional heads i.e. the loss of estate, loss of consortium and the funeral expenses. We also find that the multiplier of 16 has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal, as the same is against the principles settled by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments.
In addition to above, we are of the considered opinion that the claimant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are also entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium and interest @ 12% on the amount awarded, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1546. The relevant para of the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) are quoted below for ready reference:-
"8.4. The Insurance Company has submitted that the father and the sister of the deceased could not be treated as dependents, and it is only a mother who can be dependent of her son. This contention deserves to be repelled. The deceased was a bachelor, whose mother had pre-deceased him. The deceased's father was about 65 years old, and an unmarried sister. The deceased was contributing a part of his meagre income to the family for their sustenance and survival. Hence, they would be entitled to compensation as his dependents.
8.5. The Insurance Company has contended that the High Court had wrongly awarded Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection, and Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses.
The judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has set out the various amounts to be awarded as compensation under the conventional heads in case of death. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced herein below :
"Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that 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 principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years."
(Emphasis supplied) As per the afore-said judgment, the compensation of Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses is decreased to Rs. 15,000.
The amount awarded by the High Court towards loss of love and affection is, however, maintained.
8.6 The MACT as well as the High Court have not awarded any compensation with respect to Loss of Consortium and Loss of Estate, which are the other conventional heads under which compensation is awarded in the event of death, as recognized by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra).
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award "just compensation", irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the Claimant.
In exercise of our power under Article 142, and in the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs. 15,000 towards Loss of Estate to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) 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. Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54.
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."Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979).
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."
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.
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.
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. Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh v. Sohi Ram 2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj); Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar 2014 (3) UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570 (DB).
However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
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.
11. In light of the above mentioned discussion, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to the following amounts :--
Head Compensation awarded i. Income:
Rs. 6,000 ii. Future Prospects:
Rs. 2,400 (i.e. 40% of the income) iii. Deduction towards personal expenditure:
Rs. 2,800 [i.e. 1/3rd of (Rs. 6,000 + Rs. 2,400) iv. Total Income:
Rs. 5,600 [i.e. 2/3rd of (Rs. 6,000 + Rs. 2,400] v. Multiplier:
18 vi. Loss of future income:
Rs. 12,09,600 (Rs. 5,600 × 12 × 18) vii. Loss of love and affection:
Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. 50,000 each) viii. Funeral expenses:
Rs. 15,000 ix. Loss of estate:
Rs. 15,000 x. Loss of Filial Consortium:
Rs. 80,000 (Rs. 40,000 payable to each of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) Total compensation awarded:
Rs. 14,25,600 alongwith Interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim petition till payment. Out of the amount awarded, Respondent No. 1 is entitled to 60% while Respondent No. 2 shall be granted 40% alongwith Interest as specified above." In view of the above, we modify the judgment and award dated 09.02.2012 keeping in view the principles settled by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments. The modification is as under:-
Age of the deceased 38 years Salary of the deceased Rs. 3,000.00 per month, Total yearly Income Rs. 3,000 X 12 - Rs. 36,000.00 Future Prospect 40% - Rs. 14,400.00 Total Income - Rs. 50,400.00 1/3 Deduction of personal expenses - Rs. 50,400.00 - Rs. 16,800.00 = Rs. 33,600.00 Income
As per Sarla Verma's case, Multiplier in the present case would be of 15. As per Multiplier of 15, the amount would be - Rs. 33,600 X 15 = Rs. 5,04,000.00 Due to contributory negligence 50% shall be deducted from Rs. 5,04,000.00/2 = Rs. 2,52,000.00 Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of consortium - Rs. 120,000.00 (Rs. 40,000/- for each three claimants in the claim petition.) Funeral expenses - Rs. 15,000.00 Total Amount = Rs. 2,52,000+Rs. 15,000.00+Rs. 120,000.00+Rs. 15,000.00 = Rs. 4,02,000.00 On the total amount aforesaid, the appellant would be entitled to the interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition, as awarded in the case of Magma General Insurance (supra). The amount aforesaid is quantified and would be substituted to the amount quantified by the Tribunal towards compensation. Needless to say that the Claim Petition was filed by three persons i.e. by wife, daughter and mother of the deceased and the appeal has been filed by the wife and daughter of the deceased, as mother expired at the time of filing of the appeal and we have considered the date of filing of the Claim Petition for the amount what we have awarded. In the above background of the case, we direct that out of the total amount, we have awarded, the appellant No. 1 is entitled to 70% and appellant No. 2 is entitled to 30% alongwith the interest, as specified hereinabove. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
[Saurabh Lavania,J.] [Anil Kumar,J.]
Order Date :- 3/September/2019
Arun/-