IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.111 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : October 11, 2013 Lakhwinder Kaur and others .....Appellants Versus Manjit Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.C.S.Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Arun Bakshi, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.Puneet Sharma and Mr.Arvind Chauhan, Advocates for respondent No.3 – Insurance Company. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This claimants' appeal is directed against the Award dated August 09, 2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short `the Tribunal'), whereby, it awarded an amount of Rs.7,65,000/- as compensation to the appellants on account of death of Sukhdev Singh, aged 43 years, in a vehicular accident. 2. On October 05, 2009, Sukhdev Singh was going on his motorcycle bearing No.PB-23C-1213T from village Shahidgarh to Bassi Pathana. Lakhwinder Kaur, his wife was the pillion rider. When they reached near Gurudwara Sahib of the village, a jeep bearing No.PB- 08AC-4756T came at a fast speed from the opposite direction and its driver steered it towards wrong side and hit the motorcycle. Sukhdev Singh suffered multiple injuries. He was brought to Civil Hospital, Bassi Pathana, where, he succumbed to his injuries on the same day. FAO No.111 of 2012 (O&M) [2] 3. First Information Report No.140 dated October 06, 2009 (Exhibit P-3) was registered under Sections 304-A, etc. IPC by the Police of Police Station Bassi Pathana against Manjit Singh, driver of the jeep. Post mortem examination was conducted on the body of Sukhdev Singh and the report is Exhibit P-1. 4. Widow, sons aged about 9 years and 15 years and old parents of the deceased filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal. It was pleaded that Sukhdev Singh was born on June 15, 1967 as per the matriculation certificate (Exhibit P-5). He was working as Works Manager (Fields) with a construction company in the name and style 'Jai Maa Vijay Housing and Land Developers Private Limited' (for short `the Company') and drawing salary of Rs.8000/- per month. 5. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by Manjit Singh. It was also held that he was working as Works Manager with the Company, but his salary was assessed at Rs.6000/- per month, that is, Rs.72,000/- per annum. It deducted 1/4 th for his personal and living expenses and as such, the annual dependency of the claimants was assessed at Rs.54,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased (43 years), the Tribunal applied multiplier of 14 and calculated the amount at Rs.54,000 x 14 = 7,56,000/. Besides, amounts of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.4,000/- were awarded towards `loss of consortium' and `funeral expenses'. In all, compensation of Rs.7,65,000/- was awarded to the claimants. 6. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the claimants have filed the instant appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the Award on five points - (i) that by examining Gurpreet Singh, Director of the Company as PW3 and proving on record salary certificate as Exhibit P-1, it was established that the deceased was working as Works Manager in the Company and earning Rs.8000/- per month, so the FAO No.111 of 2012 (O&M) [3] Tribunal was not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month; (ii) the Tribunal did not consider the future prospects while determining the income of the deceased and (iii) the amounts awarded towards `loss of consortium' and `funeral expenses' are on lower side; (iv) the Tribunal did not look into the aspect of loss of love and affection to the children due to sudden death of their father and (v) the Tribunal also erred in not awarding any interest on the amount of compensation, which it ought to have. 8. The arguments raised, have substance. From the evidence of Gurpreet Singh, Director of the Company (PW3) and the salary certificate (Exhibit P-1), as also the fact that the motorcycle, on which the deceased was riding at the time of the accident, was given by the Company for official purposes, it is proved to the hilt that the deceased was working as Works Manager and drawing salary of Rs.8000/- per month. So, this Court assesses the salary of the deceased at Rs.8000/- per month. 9. In Smt.Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr 2009(6) SCC 121, it has been held by the Supreme Court that where the deceased had a permanent job and was between 40 to 50 years, there should be addition of 30% in the salary. Similar view was taken by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Poonam etc. vs. Rajbir Rawat, etc. 2013(1) RCR(Civil) 988, a judgment authored by Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.K.Sikri, the then Chief Justice of this Court. In the instant case, adding 30% to his salary, the salary comes to Rs.10400/- [8000 + (8000x30/100)]. After applying the cut of 1/4 th on account of his self-living expenses, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.7800/- (10400-2600), that is, Rs.93,600/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.13,10,400/-. 10. Coming now to the issue of compensation under the head of `loss of consortium'. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh FAO No.111 of 2012 (O&M) [4] and others, 2013 ACJ 1403 a 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 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 Santosh Devi, 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC). 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 Sarla Verma's case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), 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 FAO No.111 of 2012 (O&M) [5] 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.” 11. In the present case, the deceased was 43 years old. Keeping in view the concept of consortium referred to above, the widow of the deceased is entitled to Rs.75,000/- towards `loss of consortium'. The amount of Rs.4000/- awarded towards funeral expenses is also on the lower side, which needs enhancement. Considering this and also the fact that after the accident, Sukhdev Singh was shifted to Civil Hospital, Bassi Pathana, where, he breathed his last, awarding of Rs.10,000/- under the head of `funeral expenses and transportation' would be just and reasonable. 12. Simranjot Singh and Dalbir Singh, sons of the deceased, who were aged about 9 years and 15 years, respectively, at the time of death of Sukhdev Singh, had to suffer a lot and to grow without having shelter and guidance of their father. Thus, this Court holds that each of them is entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love FAO No.111 of 2012 (O&M) [6] and affection. Accordingly, this Court holds that the claimants are entitled to the compensation as under:- Sr.No. Heads Calculation (In Rs.) (i) Income 10400/- per month (ii) 1/4 th of (i) deducted as personal and living expenses of deceased 10400-2600=7800/- (iii) Compensation after applying multiplier of 14 7800x12x14= 13,10,400/- (v) Loss of consortium 75,000/- (vi) Loss of love and affection 25000x2 =50000/- (vii) Funeral and Transportation Charges 10,000/- Total 14,45,400/- 13. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation with a rider that in case the compensation amount is not deposited by the Insurance Company within two months, the claimants would be entitled to such interest. In considered opinion of this Court, the approach of the Tribunal was not justifiable. 14. Accordingly, the the appeal is allowed and impugned Award is modified to the extent that compensation amount is enhanced by Rs.6,80,400/- (14,45,400-7,65,000). The interest shall be payable on the entire amount of compensation of Rs.14,45,400/- at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (6% per annum) from the date of filing of claim application till the awarded amount was deposited by the respondents, under the impugned award. October 11, 2013 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE REFER TO REPORTER : YES