Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shriram Genral Insurance Co.Ltd. ... vs Anita Dubey Judgement Given By: Hon'Ble ... on 20 February, 2014
:: 1 ::
Misc. Appeal No.909/2013
20.2.2014
Shri Aditya Narayan, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Anoop Shrivastava, learned counsel for
respondents.
Heard.
The judgment passed in present appeal shall also govern the final disposal of Misc. Appeal No.1109/2013.
Both these appeals are directed against the Award dated 5.12.2012 passed by VIII Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal; whereby, in lieu of death of Rohit @ Monu Dubey, 20 year-old-son of the claimants in an accident which occurred on 16.11.2011, when the offending Vehicle, bearing No.MP-04-GA-1254 dashed at the motorcycle driven by the deceased leading to the death and severe injuries to pillion-rider, an amount of Rs.4,08,000/- has been awarded.
Both these appeals are in respect of quantum. Whereas, the Insurance Company : Appellant in Misc. Appeal No.909/2013 alleges that with wrong application of deduction towards personal expenses compensation on the higher side has been awarded.
The claimants, on the other hand, in Misc. Appeal No.1109/2013, alleges the compensation on lower side.
Factum of accident, death due to accident and the involvement of offending vehicle. The said vehicle being insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, age of deceased and non-breach of insurance policy being not in dispute is not gone into.
:: 2 ::
The deceased was 20 years of age and his parents are in the age group of 40-45 years. The deceased was unmarried and was a student of Second Year Bachelor of Computer Application course.
The Tribunal, taking into consideration the notional income Rs.3300/- per month deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses and assessed the future loss of Rs.26,400/- per annum (Rs.3300x12 = 39,600/- minus 1/3rd i.e Rs.13,200 = Rs.26,400/-) and applying the multiplier of 15 awarded Rs.3,96,000 (26,400 x 15). Further, it added Rs.12,000/- towards conventional head, thus total Rs.4,08,000/-.
In respect of income of the deceased, the claimants though deposed that the victim was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from tuition and imparting yoga training; however, no documents were filed to substantiate the claim, which led the Claims Tribunal to do some guess work and on the basis of Collector's rate assessed the income as Rs.3300/- per month i.e. Rs.100/- per day. Apparently, the deceased was literate and if engaged, could have been getting the wages earned by a skilled-worker which could be between Rs.150 to Rs.200/- per day. Taking the same to be Rs.150/- and that the work for a daily wager is available for 26 days in a month, the deceased could have notionally earned Rs.3900/- in a month, which comes to Rs.46,800/- per annum. That, being unmarried, he would have been spending half of the amount on himself i.e. Rs.23,400/-, thus, annual loss of dependancy comes to Rs.23,400/- and by applying multiplier of 15 on the average age of parents, the future loss would be :: 3 ::
Rs.3,51,000/-. In respect of expenses towards conventional heads, it has been recently held in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54 : -
"17. The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santhosh Devi (supra). We may therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs.2,500/- to Rs.10,000/- in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. In legal parlance, 'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also recognized the right of a :: 4 ::
spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium.", Thus, by adding Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, the total compensation comes to Rs.3,51,000/- plus Rs.25,000/- = Rs.3,76,000/-.
The amount of Rs.3,76,000/- will carry interest @ 7.5.% from the date of filing of claim petition. The award is modified to the extent above.
In the result, both the appeals are disposed of finally in above terms. No costs.
Let a copy of the judgment be retained in Misc. Appeal No.1109/2013.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJAY YADAV) J UDGE vinod