Smt. Rajesh And Others vs Rajbir Singh And Others on 29 January, 2010
9. On the head of general, non-pecuniary damages too the Supreme Court in unequivocal terms has indicated in Rajesh Vs Rajbir Singh referred to above that in determining the unliquidated damages in this category the inflationary trends of the times should be granted its space. It stands to reason since compensation law for tortious liability should be established on a balancing plane of pragmatism if it has to produce just and fair result. I, therefore, do not find any reason as to why children of Nachimuthu Gounder should be denied compensation on this head. To presume that adult children will not suffer loss of love and affection when death is forced on one's parent or siblings is far fetched and demonstrates a disconnect to human experience. If life of law breathes on human experience, then the same should not be sacrificed irrationally. How will a reasonable man that law has created with a grant of imperishable existence react when calamity is forced on him is what the Court should relate itself to when it is required to determine compensation on various heads of general damages. I therefore award a sum of Rs.20,000/- each for the two children of Nachimuthu Gounder on each of these two heads of loss of love and affection and shock and stress. In other words, they would be entitled to Rs.80,000/- (20,000x 2 x2) on each on these two heads. The first appellant, the widow of the deceased, however would be entitled to a higher sum on both these heads at Rs.30,000/- each. Compensation for loss of consortium of the first appellant, which the Tribunal appeared to have ignored is also quantified at Rs.50,000/-. Death too is no longer cheaper as funeral expenses, given the cost of performing obsequies, have become expensive and hence even here the impugned award requires an interference. Accordingly, it is increased from Rs.5,000/- to 20,000/-The final figure arrived on various heads will appear as below: