REPORTABLE INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CIVILAPPEALNO.9581OF2018 (ArisingoutofSLP(Civil)No.3192of2018) MagmaGeneralInsuranceCo.Ltd.Appellant Versus NanuRamAliasChuhruRam&Ors.Respondents JUDGMENT INDUMALHOTRA,J.
Leavegranted.
1. This Special Leave Petition has been filed by the Insurance Company to challenge the compensation awarded on certain countsbythePunjab&HaryanaHighCourtinFAONo.6943of 2015dated27.09.2017,tobecontrarytotheConstitutionBench judgmentinNationalInsuranceCo.Ltd.v.PranaySethi.1
2. The factual matrix of the present case, briefly stated, are as under:
1(2017)16SCC680 On 01.12.2013, the deceased was riding his motorcycle (Registration No. HR71B7681) from Ambli Village to Arjun MajraVillage.ArelativeofthedeceasedMr.RakeshKumarwas following him on a separate motorcycle on the Sadhaura NaraingarhRoad.ARenaultcarbearingRegistrationNo.HR02 AB4646drivenbyRespondentNo.3,camefromtheside,andhit the motorcycle driven by the deceased. The accident was witnessedbyMr.RakeshKumar.
Asaresultoftheaccident,thedeceasedfellandsustained multiple injuries. He was taken to the Government Hospital, NaraingarhfromwherehewasreferredtoPGI,Chandigarh.On 02.12.2013 the victim was taken to Government Hospital, Panchkulawherethedoctorsdeclaredhimdead.
Onthesameday,F.I.R.No.337wasregisteredatPolice Station,NaraingarhonthestatementofMr.RakeshKumarwho wasaneyewitnesstotheaccident.
3. The father, brother, and sister of the deceased filed Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafterreferredtoasMACT)prayingforcompensationof Rs.50,00,000alongwithInterestfromthedateoftheaccident tillthedateofrealization.
Mr.RakeshKumar,theeyewitnesswasexaminedbefore theMACT.Hedeposedstatedthattheaccidentoccurreddueto therashandnegligentdrivingofRespondentNo.3.
TheMACTafterconsideringtheevidenceplacedonrecord, cametothefindingthattheaccidenttookplaceduetotherash andnegligentdrivingofRespondentNo.3.
The deceased was 24 years old, and was engaged in the business of manufacturing Namkeen products. The Claimants contendedthattheincomeofthedeceasedwasRs.15,000per month. However, they were unable to produce evidence of the income of the deceased. The MACT took the income of the deceased to be that of an unskilled worker i.e. Rs. 5,342 per monthonthebasisoftheNotificationdated13.08.2013issued by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana prescribing minimum wagesfordifferentcategoriesofwork.
The MACT awarded compensation to the family of the deceasedasfollows:
Head Compensationawarded i. Income: Rs.5,432permonth ii. Deductiontowards Rs.1780(1/3rdofincome) personalexpenses: iii. Multiplier: 7 (as per the age of the father)
iv. Lossoffutureincome: Rs.2,99,208 [i.e.(54321780)x12x7] v. Loss of love and Rs.25,000 affection:
vi. FuneralExpenses: Rs.15,000 TotalCompensation Rs.3,39,208withinterest@ awarded: 7% from the date of the claim until realization and costs.
The MACT did not award any compensation to the brotherofthedeceased,ashecouldnotbeconsideredtobe adependent.Compensationwasawardedtotheagedfather andtheunmarriedsisterofthedeceased,whowereheldto bedependents.
TheInsuranceCompanyandthedriverofthevehicle RespondentNo.3bothwereheldtobejointlyandseverally liabletopaythecompensation.
4. TheRespondentNos.1and2i.e.thefatherandsisterof thedeceasedfiledanAppealagainsttheorderoftheMACT before the Punjab and Haryana High Court praying for enhancementofcompensation.
The High Court held that the facts relating to the accidentwereadmittedandprovedbeforetheMACT.Itwas established that the deceased haddiedas aresult of the rashandnegligentdrivingofRespondentNo.3.
The High Court found that the MACT had used the wrong principle for application of the multiplier. The multiplieroughttohavebeentakenonthebasisoftheage ofthedeceased,andnotofhisfather.
The High Court reassessed the compensation as follows:
Head Compensationawarded i. Income(asperminimum Rs.6,000permonth wages):
ii. Futureprospectsat50% Rs.3,000permonth of(i):
iii. TotalIncome: Rs.9,000 iv. Deduction of personal Rs. 3,000 (i.e. 1/3rd of total expenses: income) v. Multiplier: 18(asperageofdeceased) vi. Lossoffutureincome: Rs.12,96,000 [i.e. (9,000 3,000) x 12 x 18] vii. Loss of love and Rs.1,00,000(i.e.Rs.50,000 affection: each) viii. Funeralexpenses: Rs.25,000 TotalCompensation Rs. 14,21,000 with interest awarded: @9%fromthedateoffiling the claim petition till realization.
The amount was held to be payable jointly and severally by the Appellant Insurance Company and RespondentNo.3.
5. Aggrieved by the Order of the High Court, the Insurance CompanyfiledthepresentS.L.P.beforethisCourt,praying forsettingasidethejudgmentofthePunjabandHaryana HighCourt.
6. WehaveheardlearnedCounselfortheparties,andperused therecord.
TheprincipalgroundsonwhichtheS.L.P.hasbeenfiledby theInsuranceCompanyare:
i. TheHighCourthaserroneouslyawarded50%towards FutureProspects,eventhoughasperthejudgmentof this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.2only40%couldhavebeenawarded. ii. Thedeductionoftheincomeofthedeceasedoughtto havebeenmadeat,andnotat1/3rd,ashewasa bachelor.
iii. The minimum wages of the deceased ought to have beentakenatRs.5,341andnotRs.6,000asthatwas the prevailing rateofminimumwagesinHaryanaat thetimeoftheaccident.
iv. The father and sister of the deceased could not be considered as dependants, and were not entitled to compensation.Inthecaseofdeathofabachelor,only themothercouldbeconsideredtobeadependant. v. The grant of Rs.1,00,000on account of loss of love and affection, and Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expensesiserroneous.
ItwascontendedthatonlyRs.30,000couldhave been awarded as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra).
7. Thedependentsofthedeceasedrefutedthegroundsraised by the Insurance company, and reiterated their claim for enhancedcompensation.
8. The grounds of challenge by the Insurance Company are dealtwithseriatim.
8.1. With respect to the issue of Future Prospects, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that in casethe deceasedwas self 2(2017)16SCC680 employedoronafixedsalary,andwasbelow40years ofage,anadditionof40%oftheestablishedincome shouldbegrantedtowardsFutureProspects.
FutureProspectsaretobeawardedonthebasis of:
i. thenatureofthedeceasedsemployment;and ii. theageofthedeceased.
Inthepresentcase,itisclaimedbythefamilyof thedeceasedthathewasengagedinmakingnamkeen, and was earning a monthly income of about Rs. 15,000permonth.However,noevidencewasbrought onrecordtoestablishthesame.TheMACTaswellas theHighCourtassessedtheincomeofthedeceasedon thebasisoftheminimumwageofanunskilledworker. Thenatureofhisemploymentbeingtakenasa self employedperson.
Thedeceasedwas24yearsoldatthetimeofthe accident.Hence,futureProspectsoughttohavebeen awardedat40%oftheactualincomeofthedeceased, insteadof50%asawardedbytheHighCourt.
Hence, the judgment of the High Court on this issueismodifiedtothatextent.
8.2. Withrespecttotheissueofdeductionfromtheincome of the deceased, the Insurance Company contended that the deduction ought to have been , and not 1/3rd,sincethedeceasedwasabachelor.
Thisissuehasbeendealtwithinparagraph32of the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra) wherein this Court took the view that where the family of the bachelorislargeanddependentontheincomeofthe deceased,asinacasewherehehasawidowedmother and large number of younger nonearning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to onethird, as contribution to the family willbetakenastwothird.
Considering that the deceased was living in a village,wherehewasresidingwithhisagedfatherwho was about 65 yearsold,and Respondent No.2an unmarriedsister,theHighCourtcorrectlyconsidered them to be dependentsofthedeceased,andmadea deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased.
The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, affirmedonthiscount.
8.3. With respect to the income of the deceased, as the familycouldnotproduceanyevidencetoshowthatthe incomeofthedeceasedwasRs.15,000permonth,as claimed, the High Court took his income to be Rs. 6,000,whichismarginallyabovetheminimumwageof anunskilledworkeratRs.5,342.
Thisfindingisalsonotbeinginterferedwith.
8.4. TheInsuranceCompanyhassubmittedthatthefather andthesisterofthedeceasedcouldnotbetreatedas dependents, and it is only a mother who can be dependentofherson.Thiscontentiondeservestobe repelled.Thedeceasedwasabachelor,whosemother had predeceased him. The deceaseds father was about 65 years old, and an unmarried sister. The deceasedwascontributingapartofhismeagreincome tothefamilyfortheirsustenanceandsurvival.Hence, they would be entitled to compensation as his dependents.
8.5. TheInsuranceCompanyhascontendedthattheHigh CourthadwronglyawardedRs.1,00,000towardsloss ofloveandaffection,andRs.25,000towardsfuneral expenses.
The judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra)hassetoutthevariousamountstobeawarded ascompensationundertheconventionalheadsincase of death. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproducedhereinbelow:
Therefore,wethinkitseemlytofix reasonablesums.Itseemstousthat reasonable figures on conventional heads,namely,lossofestate,lossof consortium and funeral expenses shouldbeRs.15,000/,Rs.40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively. The principleofrevisitingthesaidheads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be factcentric or quantumcentric. 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 enhancementshouldbeattherateof 10%inaspanofthreeyears. (Emphasissupplied) Aspertheaforesaidjudgment,thecompensation ofRs.25,000towardsfuneralexpensesisdecreasedto Rs.15,000.
TheamountawardedbytheHighCourttowards lossofloveandaffectionis,however,maintained.
8.6 TheMACTaswellastheHighCourthavenotawarded anycompensationwithrespecttoLossofConsortium andLossofEstate,whicharetheotherconventional heads under which compensation is awarded in the event of death, as recognized by the Constitution BenchinPranaySethi(supra).
TheMotorVehiclesActisabeneficialandwelfare legislation. The Court is dutybound and entitled to awardjustcompensation,irrespectiveofwhetherany pleainthatbehalfwasraisedbytheClaimant.
InexerciseofourpowerunderArticle142,andin the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to awardanamountofRs.15,000towardsLossofEstate toRespondentNos.1and2.
8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensationistobeawardedinadeathcase.Oneof theseheadsisLossofConsortium.
Inlegalparlance,consortiumisacompendious term which encompasses spousal consortium, parentalconsortium,andfilialconsortium.
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affectionofthedeceased,whichisalosstohisfamily. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relationswiththedeceasedspouse.3 Spousalconsortiumisgenerallydefinedasrights pertainingtotherelationshipofahusbandwifewhich allowscompensationtothesurvivingspouseforlossof company, society,cooperation,affection, and aidof theotherineveryconjugalrelation.4 Parentalconsortiumisgrantedtothechildupon theprematuredeathofaparent,forlossofparental aid,protection,affection,society,discipline,guidance andtraining. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensationinthecaseofanaccidentaldeathofa child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and 3RajeshandOrs.vs.RajbirSinghandOrs.(2013)9SCC54 4BLACK'SLAWDICTIONARY(5thed.1979) familyofthedeceased.Thegreatestagonyforaparent istolosetheirchildduringtheirlifetime.Childrenare valued for their love, affection, companionship and theirroleinthefamilyunit.
Consortiumisaspecialprismreflectingchanging norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions worldover have recognized that the value of a childs 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 compensationunderlossofconsortiumonthedeathof a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensationforlossofthelove,affection,careand companionshipofthedeceasedchild.
TheMotorVehiclesActisabeneficiallegislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families,incasesofgenuineclaims.Incasewherea parenthaslosttheirminorchild,orunmarriedsonor daughter,theparentsareentitledtobeawardedloss ofconsortiumundertheheadofFilialConsortium.
ParentalConsortiumisawardedtochildrenwho losetheirparentsinmotorvehicleaccidentsunderthe Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count5. However, there was no clarity with 5 RajasthanHighCourtinJagmalaRam@JagmalSingh&Ors.v.SohiRam&Ors 2017(4)RLW3368(Raj);
UttarakhandHighCourtinSmt.RitaRana&Anr.v.PradeepKumar&6Ors.
respecttotheprinciplesonwhichcompensationcould beawardedonlossofFilialConsortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awardingcompensationunderLossofConsortiumas laiddowninPranaySethi(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.
9. Inlightoftheabovementioneddiscussion,RespondentNos. 1and2areentitledtothefollowingamounts: Head Compensationawarded i. Income: Rs.6,000 ii. FutureProspects: Rs. 2,400 (i.e. 40% of the income) iii. Deductiontowards Rs. 2,800 [i.e. 1/3rd of personalexpenditure: (Rs.6,000+Rs.2,400) iv. TotalIncome: Rs. 5,600 [i.e. 2/3rd of (Rs.6,000+Rs.2,400] vi. Lossoffutureincome: Rs.12,09,600(Rs.5,600x12x
18) vii. Lossofloveand Rs.1,00,000(Rs.50,000each) affection:
viii. Funeralexpenses: Rs.15,000 ix. Lossofestate: Rs.15,000 x. LossofFilial Rs.80,000(Rs.40,000payable 2014(3)UC1687;
KarnatakaHighCourtinLakshmanandOrs.v.SusheelaChandChoudhary&Ors (1996)3KantLJ570(DB) Consortium: to each of Respondent Nos.1 and2) Totalcompensationawarded: Rs. 14,25,600 alongwith Interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim petitiontillpayment.
Out of the amount awarded, Respondent No.1 is entitledto60%whileRespondentNo.2shallbegranted40% alongwithInterestasspecifiedabove.
10.The Insurance Company and Respondent No. 3 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded.
TheAppellantInsuranceCompanywillpaythefull amount of compensation awarded hereinabove to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and can recover 50% of the amountfromRespondentNo.3.
11.Theappealisdisposedofintheaboveterms.
J. (R.F.Nariman) J. (InduMalhotra) NewDelhi September18,2018.