IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] and another Appellants Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents FAO No.3908 of 2011 [ENTITY] and another Appellants Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents FAO No.3943 of 2011 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents AND FAO No.4181 of 2011 [ENTITY] and others Appellants Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents Date of Decision : 01.08.2013 [CASE NUMBER] [2] CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate for the claimants - appellants. Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. [ENTITY] J.(ORAL)
This judgment shall dispose of aforesaid five appeals filed by the claimants against five awards dated July 23, 2010 passed separately by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short "the Tribunal"). The claimants have sought enhancement of compensation.
2. Firstly the facts: On April 08, 2009, [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] (all deceased) along with [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were going in Car bearing No.RJ- 14-2C-1091 from village Lamme to Dhanaula. The Car was being driven by [ENTITY]. At about 11.00 am, when they reached near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan, Raikot, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, bus No.PB-11Y-4803 owned by [ENTITY] came from opposite direction, being driven rashly and negligently by [ENTITY], and hit the car. The accident occurred when the Bus was overtaking a tractor-trolley going ahead of it. All the occupants of the Car suffered injuries. [ENTITY] died on the spot. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were declared `brought dead' in the Hospital. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] suffered multiple injuries. The accident was witnessed by [ENTITY] and [ENTITY].
3. FIR No.12 dated April 08, 2009 under [SECTION]. [ACT] (Exhibit P-1) was registered in Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana (Rural) against the driver of the bus.
[CASE NUMBER] (Death of [ENTITY]):
4. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], sons of [ENTITY] filed claim application under [SECTION] of the [ACT] before the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,44,500/- to the claimants holding that the deceased was rd a labourer and earning Rs.3000/- per month. Deducting 1/3 towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, annual dependency was determined at Rs.24,000/- (2000x12) and considering his age (50 years), multiplier of 10 was applied. Besides, Rs.2000/- and Rs.2500/- were awarded towards `funeral expenses' and `loss of estate'.
5. Taking judicial notice of inflation in these days, in considered opinion of this Court, even if the deceased ([ENTITY]) was a labourer, then in the year 2009, he must have been earning Rs.4500/- per month. So, This court holds his income at Rs.4500/-. Since the deceased was 50 years old, following the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. [ENTITY] and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(6) SCC 121, multiplier of 13 should be applied. So, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,68,000 rd (4500-1/3 x12x13). The Tribunal also fell in error in awarding meagre amounts towards `funeral expenses' and `loss of estate', which are enhanced to Rs.5000, each. In this way, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,78,000/- (4,68,000 + 5000 + 5000).
[CASE NUMBER] (Injuries to [ENTITY]):
6. [ENTITY] suffered injuries in the accident. He examined Dr.[ENTITY], Medical officer, Medi City Hospital, Ludhiana (PW3), who proved the medicines bills (Exhibits P-1 to P-20) amounting to Rs.11,270/- and operation and treatment bills (Exhibit PW3/B and PW3/B) amounting to Rs.37,425/-. The Tribunal besides the amount spent on the treatment that is Rs.48695/-, awarded Rs.5000/- towards `pain and suffering'. Total compensation of Rs.53,695/- was awarded by the Tribunal.
7. Dr.[ENTITY] (PW3) on the basis of the record deposed that [ENTITY] was admitted in the Hospital on April 08, 2009 and discharged on April 15, 2009, that is, he remained hospitalised for seven days. He suffered nasal bleeding with fracture maxilla and was operated for the fracture maxilla (Jaw). Open reduction and internal fixation by plates and screws was done. The injuries were to take time to heal up completely. The nature of the injuries suffered by the appellant suggest that he must have undergone agony for a long time. In considered opinion of this court, the Tribunal awarded less amount under the head of 'pain and suffering'. The appellant must have taken sufficient time to resume his work. The injury also suggests that it could not have been possible for the appellant to take normal food for quite a long time. Thus, the amount of Rs.5000/- awarded under the head of `pain and suffering' is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of earnings. Accordingly, he is held entitled to Rs.88,695/- (53695 + 25000 + 10000) as compensation.
FAO-3908-2011 (Death of [ENTITY]):
8. The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.2100/- per month and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.1500/- per month. Taking into consideration the age of the deceasd (45 years), the Tribunal applied multiplier of 12 and assessed total loss of dependency at Rs.2,16,000 (1500x12x12). Besides, Rs.2000/- and Rs.5000/- were awarded towards `funeral expenses' and `loss of estate', respectively. In all compensation of Rs.2,23,000/- was awarded to the claiamants.
9. [ENTITY] was the mother of the claimants. She was a house-wife. The claimants also lost their father in the accident.
10. In a recent judgment of Division Bench of this Court in [PRECEDENT] decided on May 16, 2013) after referring to the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] held the income of the house-wife at Rs.3000/- and that there should be no deduction in the income towards her personal and living expenses. The Tribunal also fell in error in applying the multiplier of `13'. Considering the age of 45 years, it should be `14' as held by the Supreme Court in Smt. [ENTITY] and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(6) SCC 121. The claimants are held entited to Rs.5000/- towards `funeral expenses' instead of Rs.2000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the compensation is determined at Rs.5,14,000/-(3000x12x14 +5000+5000).
FAO-3943-2011 (Injuries to [ENTITY]):
11. [ENTITY] suffered injuries. She remained hospitalised in Medi City Hospital, Ludhiana from April 08, 2009 to April 15, 2009, that is, for seven days. Dr.[ENTITY] (PW4) deposed that she suffered fracture of ulna right side, beside lacerated wounds right forehead, left upper eyelid, right marginal region, left cheek and nasal bone. She was operated for left upper eyelid, left forehead, left mandible region and for fracture nasal bone. This witness has also proved the medicines bills of Rs.17460/- (Exhibit P1 to P21) and hospital bills of Rs.40,960/- (Exhibits PW4/D, PW4/E, PW4/F and PW4/G. She was also held entitled to Rs.5000/- under the head of `pain and suffering'. In all, compensation of Rs.63,420/- was awarded to her.
12. In considered opinion of this Court, except for the amount awarded under the head of `pain and suffering' the compensation assessed by the Tribunal does not require any interference. Under the head of `pain and suffering', the appellant is held entitled to Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.5000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, she is held entitled to compensation of Rs.83,420/- (17460+40960+25000).
FAO-4181-2011 (death of [ENTITY])
13. The Tribunal assessed the income of deceased [ENTITY] at Rs.3000 considering him to be a labourer and deducted 1/3 towards his personal and living expenses. Since, he was 48 years of age, multiplier of 13 was applied. Besides, amounts of Rs.2000/-, Rs.5000/- and Rs.2500/- were awarded towards `funeral expenses', `loss of consortium' and `loss of estate', respectively. The claimants were held entitled to Rs.3,21,500/- (2000x12x13 + 2000 + 5000 + 2500)
14. As held above in the case of [ENTITY] (deceased), monthly income of a labourer could not be less than Rs.4500/- in the year 2009. Hence, income of [ENTITY] (deceased) is held to be Rs.4500/- per month. In [ENTITY] and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 ACJ 1403, a Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, between the age group of 40-50 years, there must be an addition of 30% to the actual income of the deceased. Similar view was taken by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in [PRECEDENT], a judgment authored by Hon'ble Mr.Justice [ENTITY], the then Chief Justice of this Court.
15. Following the aforesaid decisions and in considered opinion of this Court even if the deceased was a labourer/self-employed, aged about 48 years, there must be an addition of 30% in his income on account of future prospects. Hence, his income is assessed at rd Rs.5850/- (4500+1350) per month. Deducting 1/3 for his personal and living expenses, the dependency has to be and it is assessed as 5850- rd 1/3 = 3900x12x13 = 6,08,400/-
16. So far as the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded on account of loss of consortium is concerned, in [ENTITY] and others, supra the full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court commented upon the meaning of consortium and awarded Rs.1 lac to the wife on account of death of her husband who was 33 years of age. For ready reference, paragraph No.20 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"The ratio of a decision of this Court on a legal issue is a predecent. 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 [PRECEDENT]. We may, therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads:
(i) loss of consortium to the spouse;
(ii) loss of love, care and guidance to children; and
(iii) funeral expenses.
It may be noted that the sum of Rs.2500/- to Rs.10000/- under those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In [ENTITY]'s case, [CASE NUMBER], it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs.5000 to Rs.10000/-. 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., which 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 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 be only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium."
17. Since the deceased was 48 years old and keeping in view the concept of consortium referred to above, the amount for loss of consortium is enhanced to Rs.75,000/- and is awarded to the widow of the deceased. The amount awarded towards `funeral expenses' is also enhanced to Rs.5000/-. Hence, the claimants/legal representatives of [ENTITY] shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.6,90,900/- (608400+75000+5000+2500).
18. In view of above discussion, the claimants are held entitled to compensation as under:-
Particulars of case Compensation Compensation Enhanced awarded by awarded by amount Tribunal this Court In case of Death of 2,44,500/- 4,78,000/- 2,33,500/- [ENTITY] In case of injuries to 53,695/- 88,695/- 35,000/- [ENTITY] In case of death of 2,23,000/- 5,14,000/- 2,91,000/- [ENTITY] In case of injuries to 63,420/- 83,420/- 20,000/- [ENTITY] In case of death of 3,21,500/- 6,90,900/- 3,69,400/- [ENTITY]
19. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed and the Awards of the Tribunal are modified to the extent, as indicated above. The interest on the enhanced amount shall be paid from the date of filing claim application till the amount was deposited by the insurance company under the impugned Award at the same rate of interest (7.5% per annum) as was awarded by the Tribunal.
August 01, 2013 ( [ENTITY] ) `gian' JUDGE REFER TO REPORTER : YES