Karnataka High Court
Kashimani W/O Late Anand vs Mohammedsab S/O Gafarsab on 12 August, 2020
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12 T H DAY OF AUGUS T 2020
BEFORE
THE H ON'BLE MR. JUST ICE M. NA GAP RASANNA
M.F.A.NO.23108/2009 (MV)
BETWEEN :
1. KASHIMANI
W/O LAT E ANAND,
AGED AB OUT 26 Y EARS,
OCC: HOUSE WIFE.
2. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LAT E ANAND,
AGED AB OUT 8 Y EARS,
OCC: STUDENT .
3. NEET ESHKUMAR
S/O LAT E ANAND,
AGED AB OUT 4 Y EARS,
OCC: STUDENT .
4. POOVAMMA
W/O LAT E CHANDR APPA,
AGED AB OUT 60 Y EARS,
OCC: HOUSE WIFE.
ALL ARE R/O B ANDIBASAPPA CAMP,
TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL
THE APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3
2
ARE MINOR REP. BY ITS GUARDIAN
MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.ANANDKUMAR , ADVOCATE,)
AND :
1. MOHAMMEDSAB
S/O GAFA RSAB,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
R/O AGALAKERA VILLAGE,
TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.
2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO .LT D.,
REPT. BY ITS BR ANCH MANAGER,
HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBLI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGARAJ C.KOLL OORI , ADV OCATE FOR R2)
(NOTICE T O R- 1 : DISPENSED WIT H)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPE AL IS FILED
UNDER SECTI ON 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT ,
1988 AGAINST T HE JUDGMENT A ND AWARD DATED
22.06.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.243/2008 ON THE FILE
OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), AND MEMBER,
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT GANGAVATHI PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PET ITION FOR COMPENSAT ION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF CO MPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COM ING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:
3
: JUDGMENT :
This appeal, though listed for admission, is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.06.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangavathi, in M.V.C.No.243/2008.
3. Parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 12.02.2008 at about 3.00 p.m., the deceased and his wife were standing on Gangavathi-Anegundi road, at Korramma camp waiting for the bus to go to Uligemma Temple. At that time, a driver of 4 Tempo Trax Toofan vehicle bearing registration No.KA.37/5895 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed his vehicle to the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on spot.
5. On the loss of breadwinner of the family, the claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal in MVC.No.243/2008 on the ground that the deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and was employed as a masion and was earning about Rs.6,500/- per month. The claimants claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs.10,09,000/- along with interest.
6. On service of notice, respondent No.1 did not place his appearance, therefore he was set at exparte. However, respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared and filed separate statement of objections. The respondents denied the accident 5 in question and contended that the accident in question had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the 1st respondent. It was further contended that the accident had occurred not due to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo trax, but due to the place at which the deceased was standing on the street. It was also contended that the compensation sought was highly exorbitant and excessive.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence.
8. The wife of the deceased, in order to prove the case, examined herself as P.W.1 and got exhibited 9 documents namely Exs.P1 to Ex.P.9. The respondent-Insurance Company examined one witness by name Ullas Karanth as R.W.1 in its behalf and did not produce any documents.
6
9. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax Toofan vehicle bearing registration No.KA.37/5895 by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,75,800/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. Being aggrieved by the determination of the quantum of compensation the claimants have preferred instant miscellaneous first appeal claiming enhancement of compensation.
10. I have heard Sri Anandkumar, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Nagaraj C.Kolloori, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company through video conference.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the tribunal grossly erred in taking 7 the income at Rs.3,900/- per month without any basis notwithstanding the fact that, the notional income determined even by Chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal Services Committee is Rs.4,250/- per month for the accident that accorded in the year 2008. Learned counsel for the appellants would further contend that the compensation awarded on all the other conventional heads is on the lower side.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal does not warrant any interference and would support the same.
13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only issue that falls for my consideration is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8
14. Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. Therefore, the notional income has to be fixed as per the guidelines issued by the High Court Legal Services Committee. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2008, the notional income as per the Chart would be Rs.4,250/- per month and not Rs.3,900/- as taken by the Tribunal. To the aforesaid amount, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others' AIR 2017 SC 5157. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.5,950/-. Out of which, I deem it appropriate to deduct 1/4 t h towards personal expenses and therefore, the total monthly dependency comes to Rs.4,462.50 rounded off to Rs.4,463/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 38 years at 9 the time of accident, multiplier of "15" has to be adopted. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,03,340/- (Rs.4,463 X 12 X 15) on account of loss of dependency.
15. Now the question that falls for my consideration is to the amount of compensation to be awarded on the three conventional heads as determined in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Namely loss of estate, loss of funeral expenses and loss of consortium.
16. The Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) insofar it relates to grant of compensation under the head of loss of consortium has held at paragraph Nos.48 and 54, which read as follows :
"48. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Santosh Devi (AIR 2012 SC 2185), the two-Judge Bench followed the traditional method and granted Rs. 5,000/- for transportation 10 of the body, Rs. 10,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- as regards the loss of consortium. In Sarla Verma, the Court granted Rs. 5,000/- und er the head of loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of Consortium. In Rajesh, the Court granted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. It also granted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guid ance for minor children. The Court enhanced the same on the principle that a formula framed to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio- economic issue has to b e contrasted from a legal p rinciple and ought to b e periodically revisited as has been held in Santosh Devi (supra). On the principle of revisit, it fixed different amount on conventional head s. What weighed with the Court is factum of inflation and the price index. It has also been moved by the concept of loss of consortium. We are inclined to think so, for what it states in that regard. We quote:-11
"17. ... In legal parlance, "consortium" is the right of the spouse to the comp any, care, help, comfort, guid ance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of d amages has not been prop erly understood by our courts. The loss of comp anionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concep t of non- pecuniary d amage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of comp ensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have also recognised the right of a spouse to get comp ensation even during the p eriod of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have mad e an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sex ual relations during the future y ears. Unlike the compensation award ed in other 12 countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise ad equately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not b e 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."
54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view exp ressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guid ance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot b e determined on p ercentage b asis b ecause that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified . Any quantification must have a reasonable 13 found ation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this asp ect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the ord ers p assed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. 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 accep table p rinciple. But the revisit should not b e 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 14 and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a sp an of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads."
17. In terms of the afore extracted judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the conventional heads determined was loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses which was calculated at Rs.70,000/- in all (Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- funeral expenses).
18. Later, when the several High Courts granted compensation under the head of loss of consortium to each of the claimants, it led to the Hon'ble Supreme Court again considering the concept of loss of consortium in the case of Magma General Insurance Company (Supra). The Specific question that arose for consideration 15 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as follows:
"This sp ecial leave p etition has b een filed by the Insurance Company to challenge the compensation awarded on certain counts by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nannu Ram v. Mayank Goel [Nannu Ram v. Mayank Goel, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 4973] , to be contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] .
19. Answering afore extracted issue that fell for consideration, the Apex Court at paragraph No.21 and 24 has held as follows:
21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads und er which 16 comp ensation is to be award ed in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal p arlance, "consortium" is a comp endious term which encomp asses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would includ e the comp any, care, help, comfort, guid ance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would includ e sexual relations with the deceased spouse:
[Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally d efined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husb and-wife which allows comp ensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "comp any, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation".
[Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of 17 a p arent, for loss of "p arental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guid ance 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 accid ent leading to the d eath of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a p arent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, comp anionship 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 recognised that the value of a child's consortium far ex ceeds the economic value of the compensation award ed in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore p ermit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the d eath of a child. The amount award ed to the p arents is a comp ensation for loss of the love, 18 affection, care and comp anionship 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 d aughter, the parents are entitled to be award ed loss of consortium und er the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is award ed to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents und er the Act. A few High Courts have awarded comp ensation on this count [ Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Prad eep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLineUtt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 :
(1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] . Howev er, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be award ed on loss of filial consortium.19
24. The amount of compensation to be award ed as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding comp ensation under "loss of consortium"
as laid down in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . In the present case, we deem it app rop riate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.
20. On the afore extracted consideration of the concept of consortium, the compensation was determined in the following manner by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
25. In light of the abovementioned discussion, Resp ondents 1 and 2 are entitled to the following amounts:
Head Compensation awarded
(i) Income Rs 6000
(ii) Future prospects Rs 2400 ( i.e . 40% of the
income)
(iii) Deduction towards Rs 280 0 i.e. ⅓rd of (Rs
personal 6000 + Rs 2400)
expenditure
(iv) Total income Rs 560 0 i.e. ⅔rd of (Rs
6000 + Rs 2400)
20
(v) Multip lier 18
(vi) Loss of future Rs 12,09,600 (Rs 560 0 ×
income 12 × 18)
(vii) Loss of love and Rs 1,00,000 (Rs 50,000
affection each)
(vii i) Funeral ex penses Rs 15,000
(ix) Loss of estate Rs 15,000
(x) Loss of filial Rs 80,000 (Rs 40,000
consortium pay able to each of
Respondents 1 and 2)
Total Rs 14,25,600 along with
compensation interest @ 12% p.a. from
awa rded the date of filin g of the
c laim petition t ill payment.
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) determined that each of the applicants will be entitled to consortium under spousal, filial and parental at Rs.40,000/- each apart from awarding compensation under the head of loss of love and affection.
22. The judgment rendered in the case of Magma General Insurance Company and issue of consortium and compensation under loss of love and affection again fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur and 21 others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 410, wherein the Apex Court, again considering Pranay Sethi's case and reiterating Magma General Insurance Companys' case (Supra) has held as follows :
53. In Pranay Sethi (sup ra), the Constitution Bench held that in death cases, compensation would be awarded only under three conventional heads viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral exp enses.
54. The Court held that the conventional and traditional head s, cannot be d etermined on percentage basis, because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified, which has to be based on a reasonable found ation. It was observed that factors such as price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates, are aspects which have to be taken into consideration. The Court held 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/- resp ectively. The Court was of 22 the view that the amounts to be award ed under these conventional heads should be enhanced by 10% every three years, which will bring consistency in resp ect of these heads.
a) Loss of Estate - Rs. 15,000 to be awarded
b) Loss of Consortium
55. Loss of Consortium, in legal parlance, was historically given a narrow meaning to be award ed only to the spouse i.e. the right of the spouse to the comp any, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. The loss of comp anionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be comp ensated app ropriately. The concep t of non- pecuniary d amage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads for awarding comp ensation in various jurisdictions such as the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have recognised the right of a spouse to get comp ensation even during the period of temporary disablement.
23
56. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, 1 2 this Court interpreted "consortium" to be a comp endious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. The right to consortium would includ e the comp any, care, help , comfort, guid ance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With resp ect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
57. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of p arental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guid ance and training.
58. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accid ent leading to the d eath of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a p arent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children 24 are valued for their love and affection, and their role in the family unit.
59. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the comp ensation award ed in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions permit parents to be award ed compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount award ed to the p arents is the comp ensation for loss of love and affection, care and comp anionship of the deceased child.
60. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a b eneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of 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 d aughter, the parents are entitled to be award ed loss of consortium und er the head of Filial Consortium.
61. Parental Consortium is award ed to the children who lose the care and 25 protection of their p arents in motor vehicle accidents.
62. The amount to be award ed for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra).
63. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
64. In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
26
65. The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head.
(Emphasis Supplied)
23. Thus, the afore extracted Three Judge Bench decision in the case of Satinder Kaur and others (Supra) further confirmed the award of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium to each of the claimants, as held in the case of Magma (supra) but directed that the award of compensation under the loss of love and affection as a separate head would became unjustified.
24. Learned counsel for the insurance company as stated hereinabove is now contending that the Apex Court in the case of The National Insurance company Limited Vs. Ramesh Chand and others (Supra) by its 27 interim order dated 06.08.2020 has stayed the direction given in Magma General Insurance Company's case (Supra) to award loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants. To consider this, it is germane to notice the interim order granted by the Apex Court on 06.08.2020 in the afore stated Special Leave Petition which reads as follows :
"ORDER Application for exemption from filing attested affid avit is allowed .
Delay condoned.
There are two aspects urged by learned counsel for the p etitioner : (a) in terms of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, the total amount which can be given for loss of consortium is Rs.40,000/- and it cannot b e Rs.40,000/- for each of the persons d ependent on the deceased . He submits that there is an app arent conflict in this b ehalf vis-à-vis the judgment in Magma General Insurance Comp any limited Vs. Nanu Ram & ors. (2018) 18 28 SCC 130 and also; (b) the loss of love and affection cannot be granted as a sep arate head and loss of consortium will be granted and thus, the impugned order which grants Rs.50,000/-and Rs.40,000/- resp ectively is erroneous because the total amount cannot be more than Rs.40,000/- even if each of the siblings was to be p aid without p rejudice to what is stated hereinabove is the first question. He submits that this asp ect stands settled by a recent judgment in united India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Satind er Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020] decided on 30 t h June, 2020.
Before we consider whether the issue is liable to be referred to a larger Bench since Magma General Insurance Comp any's case (Sup ra) is a Two Judges Bench judgment, we would like to first issue notice and hear the other side. We may even consider appointing an amicus curiae to assist the Court in this behalf dependent upon whether rep resentation is there on b ehalf of the respondents or not.
Issue notice.29
In the meantime, the impugned order to the extent it grants separately loss of love and affection apart from loss of consortium to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- is stayed. The remaining amount will be released forthwith to the respondents.
(Emphasis Supplied)
25. A cursory perusal of the afore extracted interim order granted by the Apex Court would be unequivocally clear that the order impugned before the Apex Court namely the judgment dated 31.10.2019 passed in MACA No.265/2018 by the High Court of Delhi and granted Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection apart from loss of consortium. It is germane at this juncture to notice the judgment of the High Court of Delhi which was impugned before the Apex Court, wherein the afore extracted interim order was granted. The order of the High Court of Delhi granting compensation in the case of Ramesh Chand & others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And others read as follows: 30
"4. The Court would note that app ellant Nos.1 to 9 are all children of the deceased, of whom only six were financially d ependent upon him. Nevertheless, each of the claimants including those not financially dep endent on the deceased, being his children would be entitled to and are granted non-p ecuniary comp ensation towards "loss of love and affection" and "loss of Consortium" @ Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively as per the dicta of the Sup reme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., 2018 SCC Online SC 1546. Additionally, compensation towards 'Loss of Estate' and 'Funeral Exp enses' Shall also be payable @ Rs.15,000/- und er each of the heads as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Accordingly, the total p ayable amount would be as under:
S. Particulars Amount No.
1. Loss of de pendency [Rs.10,140 (minimum w ages) x (months) x 9 (multiplier) x Rs.9,03,474/-
75/100 (de duction tow ards personal expense s) x 110/100 (loss of future prospects) 2 Lo ss of love and affe ction Rs.5,00,000/- 31
[Rs.50,000 x 10 (clai mants)]
3. Lo ss of Consorti um Rs.4,00,000/-
[Rs.40,000 x 10 (clai mants)]
4. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
5. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
TOTA L Rs.18,33,474/- Less (amount alre ady aw arded by learne d Tribunal) Rs.10,85,914/-
[Rs.18,33,474/- less Rs. 7,47,560/-
(Emphasis Supplied)
26. As could be seen from the chart extracted in the order passed by the High Court of Delhi, Rs.5,00,000/- is granted on the head of loss of love and affection apart from the grant of loss of consortium. This is what the Apex Court has stayed in the afore extracted interim order which clearly reads that loss of love and affection cannot be a separate head apart from loss of consortium to grant compensation.
27. The judgment in Magma General Insurance Company (Supra) which considered the constitution Bench judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi and the judgment in Satindar Kaur which again considered both the judgments in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance 32 Company are applicable to the facts obtaining in the case on hand for awarding compensation under loss of consortium as held in Magma & Satinder Kaur and not the interim order granted by the Apex Court as contended by learned counsel for the insurance company.
28. Hence, I am of the view that the claimants are entitled to a compensation under the head of loss of spousal and parental consortium to the tune of Rs.40,000/- each. Since claimants are four in number, the compensation under this head is assessed at Rs.1,60,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.9,93,340/- as against Rs.4,75.800 awarded bu the Trobimal. Needless to state that the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till 33 payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment and award of the Claimants Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE EM/-