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

2. Compensation which appears to it to be just, has to be assessed and awarded by the Claims Tribunal set up under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), on an application under Section 166 of the Act.3. In Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others [AIR 2003 SC 674 ], it has been held by this Court that the main guiding principle for determining the compensation is that it must be just. It has also been held that the award must be reasonable. Some of the relevant parameters in that regard arise for consideration in this case.4. Petitioners are the widow (Smt. Rajesh) and three minor children of late Bijendervictim. At the time of accident, the deceased was around 33 years. The fatal accident was on 05.10.2007. The deceased was working as clerk in a school under the education department in the State of Haryana. The salary certificate,filed along with Claim Petition filed on 26.11.2007, showed that the deceased was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 16 and further awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/towards all other conventional heads and the compensation was rounded off to Rs.8,96,500/with interest @ 7.5% from the date of the filing of the petition. It was also held that 60% of the compensation awarded would go to the widow and the remaining 40% to be equally shared by the minor children and mother. The share of the minor children was directed to be deposited in their name in a nationalized bank till they attained majority.5. Dissatisfied, the Claim Petitioners except the mother approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The mother was made a proforma respondent. High Court, following Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009) 6 SCC 121] , modified the award holding that only 1/4th should have been deducted from the income. An amount of Rs.10,000/was also awarded for loss of consortium in addition to Rs.10,000/already granted by the Tribunal on other conventional heads and, thus, it was held that the total compensation would be Rs.10,17,000/with interest @ 7.5%.Still not satisfied, the widow and the children have approached this Court.

Reasoning:
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.