Case: Rajesh &amp; Others Vs. Rajbir Singh &amp; Others

Claims Tribunal under sub- Section (6) of Section 158 has to be treated as an Application for Compensation. Section 158 (6) of the Act reads as follows: "158. Production of certain certificates, licence and permit in certain cases.-(1) to (5) xxx xxx xxx(6) As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and, where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and insurer." 17. Section 166 (4) of the Act reads as follows: - "166(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act." 18. Prior to the amendment in 1994, it was left to the discretion of the Tribunal as to whether the report be treated as an application or not. The pre-amended position under sub-Section (4) of Section 166 of the Act, read as under: "(4) Where a police officer has filed a copy of the report regarding an accident to a Claims Tribunal under this Act, the Claims Tribunal may, if it thinks it necessary so to do, treat the report as if it were an application for compensation under this Act." 19. In a report on accident, there is no question of any reference to any claim for damages, different heads of damages or such other details. It is the duty of the Tribunal to build on that report and award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation with reference to the settled principles on assessment of damages. Thus, on that ground also we hold that the Tribunal/Court has a duty, irrespective of the claims made in the Application, if any, to properly award a just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation, if necessary, ignoring the claim made in the application for compensation.20. 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 Santhosh Devi (supra). We may therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs.2,500/- to Rs.10,000/- in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Vermas case (supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. 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., 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 spouses 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 only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium. 21. We may also take judicial notice of the fact that the Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of compensation under the head Funeral Expenses. The Price Index, it is a fact has gone up in that regard also. The head Funeral Expenses does not mean the fee paid in the crematorium or fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with funeral and, if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expensive. Therefore, we are of the view that it will be just, fair and equitable, under the head of Funeral Expenses, in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs.25,000/-. 22. Petitioners have produced before this Court Annexure-P4 salary certificate of the deceased Bijender Singh which shows that after the revision of the salary by the Sixth Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006, the deceased had a monthly salary of Rs.9,520/-. It is submitted that since the Sixth Pay Commission benefits were announced only subsequently making it to operate retrospectively from 01.01.2006, the salary certificate could not be produced before the Tribunal or the High Court. Applying the principles in Sarla Vermas case (supra) as explained in Santosh Devis case, and in the instant case, the compensation has to be re-assessed as follows: chart 23. The amount will carry interest @ 7.5% as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the filing of the petition, viz., 26.11.2007 till realization.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]19. In a report on accident, there is no question of any reference to any claim for damages, different heads of damages or such other details. It is the duty of the Tribunal to build on that report and award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation with reference to the settled principles on assessment of damages. Thus, on that ground also we hold that the Tribunal/Court has a duty, irrespective of the claims made in the Application, if any, to properly award a just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation, if necessary, ignoring the claim made in the application for compensation.20. 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 aissue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santhosh Devi (supra). We may therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs.2,500/in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Vermas case (supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs.5,000/. 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. Thathead of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept ofPetitioners have produced before this Courtsalary certificate of the deceased Bijender Singh which shows that after the revision of the salary by the Sixth Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006, the deceased had a monthly salary of Rs.It is submitted that since the Sixth Pay Commission benefits were announced only subsequently making it to operate retrospectively from 01.01.2006, the salary certificate could not be produced before the Tribunal or the High Court.