Indu Malhotra, J.— Leave granted. This special leave petition has been filed by the Insurance Company to challenge the compensation awarded on certain counts by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nannu Ram v. Mayank Goel 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 4973, to be contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680.
2. The factual matrix of the present case, briefly stated, are as under.
3. On 1-12-2013, the deceased was riding his motorcycle (Registration No. HR 71B 7681) from Ambli Village to Arjun Majra Village. A relative of the deceased Mr Rakesh Kumar was following him on a separate motorcycle on Sadhaura-Naraingarh Road. A Renault car bearing Registration No. HR 02 AB 4646 driven by Respondent 3, came from the side, and hit the motorcycle driven by the deceased. The accident was witnessed by Mr Rakesh Kumar. As a result of the accident, the deceased fell and sustained multiple injuries. He was taken to Government Hospital, Naraingarh from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. On 2-12-2013, the victim was taken to Government Hospital, Panchkula where the doctors declared him dead. On the same day, FIR No. 337 was registered at Police Station Naraingarh on the statement of Mr Rakesh Kumar who was an eyewitness to the accident.
4. The father, brother and sister of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter referred to as MACT) praying for compensation of Rs 50,00,000 along with interest from the date of the accident till the date of realisation. Mr Rakesh Kumar, the eyewitness was examined before MACT. He deposed and stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent 3. MACT after considering the evidence placed on record, came to the finding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent 3.
5. The deceased was 24 years old, and was engaged in the business of manufacturing namkeen products. The claimants contended that the income of the deceased was Rs 15,000 per month. However, they were unable to produce evidence of the income of the deceased. MACT took the income of the deceased to be that of an unskilled worker i.e. Rs 5342 per month on the basis of the Notification dated 13-8-2013 issued by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana prescribing minimum wages for different categories of work.
6. MACT awarded compensation to the family of the deceased as follows:
Head Compensation awarded (i) Income Rs 5432 per month (ii) Deduction towards personal expenses Rs 1780 (⅓rd of income) (iii) Multiplier 7 (as per the age of the father) (iv) Loss of future income Rs 2,99,208 [i.e. (5432 − 1780) × 12 × 7] (v) Loss of love and affection Rs 25,000 (vi) Funeral expenses Rs 15,000 Total compensation awarded Rs 3,39,208 with interest @ 7% from the date of the claim until realisation and costs.
7. MACT did not award any compensation to the brother of the deceased, as he could not be considered to be a dependant. Compensation was awarded to the aged father and the unmarried sister of the deceased, who were held to be dependants. The Insurance Company and the driver of the vehicle, Respondent 3 both were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
8. Respondents 1 and 2 i.e. the father and sister of the deceased filed an appeal against the order of MACT before the Punjab and Haryana High Court praying for enhancement of compensation. The High Court held that the facts relating to the accident were admitted and proved before MACT. It was established that the deceased had died as a result of the rash and negligent driving of Respondent 3. The High Court found that MACT had used the wrong principle for application of the multiplier. The multiplier ought to have been taken on the basis of the age of the deceased, and not of his father.
9. The High Court reassessed the compensation as follows:
Head Compensation awarded (i) Income (as per minimum wages) Rs 6000 per month (ii) Future prospects at 50% of (i) Rs 3000 per month (iii) Total income Rs 9000 (iv) Deduction of personal expenses Rs 3000 (i.e. ⅓rd of total income) (v) Multiplier 18 (as per age of deceased) (vi) Loss of future income Rs 12,96,000 [i.e. (9000 − 3000) × 12 × 18] (vii) Loss of love and affection Rs 1,00,000 (i.e. Rs 50,000 each) (viii) Funeral expenses Rs 25,000 Total compensation awarded Rs 14,21,000 with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation.
The amount was held to be payable jointly and severally by the appellant Insurance Company and Respondent 3.
10. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the Insurance Company filed the present SLP before this Court, praying for setting aside the judgment 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 4973 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.
12. The principal grounds on which the SLP has been filed by the Insurance Company are:
12.1. The High Court has erroneously awarded 50% towards future prospects, even though as per the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 only 40% could have been awarded.
12.2. The deduction of the income of the deceased ought to have been made at ½, and not at ⅓rd, as he was a bachelor.
12.3. The minimum wages of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs 5341 and not Rs 6000 as that was the prevailing rate of minimum wages in Haryana at the time of the accident.
12.4. The father and sister of the deceased could not be considered as dependants, and were not entitled to compensation. In the case of death of a bachelor, only the mother could be considered to be a dependant.
12.5. The grant of Rs 1,00,000 on account of loss of love and affection, and Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses is erroneous. It was contended that only Rs 30,000 could have been awarded as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680.
13. The dependants of the deceased refuted the grounds raised by the Insurance Company, and reiterated their claim for enhanced compensation.
14. The grounds of challenge by the Insurance Company are dealt with in seriatim.
15. With respect to the issue of future prospects, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, and was below 40 years of age, an addition of 40% of the established income should be granted towards future prospects. Future prospects are to be awarded on the basis of:
(i) the nature of the deceased's employment; and
(ii) the age of the deceased.
In the present case, it is claimed by the family of the deceased that he was engaged in making namkeen, and was earning a monthly income of about Rs 15,000 per month. However, no evidence was brought on record to establish the same. MACT as well as the High Court assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wage of an unskilled worker. The nature of his employment being taken as a self-employed person. The deceased was 24 years old at the time of the accident. Hence, future prospects ought to have been awarded at 40% of the actual income of the deceased, instead of 50% as awarded by the High Court. Hence, the judgment 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 4973 of the High Court on this issue is modified to that extent.
16. With respect to the issue of deduction from the income of the deceased, the Insurance Company contended that the deduction ought to have been ½, and not ⅓rd, since the deceased was a bachelor. This issue has been dealt with in para 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein this Court took the view that where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third, as contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. Considering that the deceased was living in a village, where he was residing with his aged father who was about 65 years old, and Respondent 2, an unmarried sister, the High Court correctly considered them to be dependants of the deceased, and made a deduction of ⅓rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, affirmed on this count.
17. With respect to the income of the deceased, as the family could not produce any evidence to show that the income of the deceased was Rs 15,000 per month, as claimed, the High Court took his income to be Rs 6000, which is marginally above the minimum wage of an unskilled worker at Rs 5342. This finding is also not being interfered with.
18. The Insurance Company has submitted that the father and the sister of the deceased could not be treated as dependants, and it is only a mother who can be dependant of her son. This contention deserves to be repelled. The deceased was a bachelor, whose mother had predeceased him. The deceased's father was about 65 years old, and an unmarried sister. The deceased was contributing a part of his meagre income to the family for their sustenance and survival. Hence, they would be entitled to compensation as his dependants.
19. The Insurance Company has contended that the High Court had wrongly awarded Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection, and Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses. The judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 has set out the various amounts to be awarded as compensation under the conventional heads in case of death. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced herein below:
“52. … Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. 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 enhancement should be @ 10% in a span of three years.”
(emphasis supplied)
As per the aforesaid judgment, the compensation of Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses is decreased to Rs 15,000. The amount awarded by the High Court towards loss of love and affection is, however, maintained.
20. MACT as well as the High Court have not awarded any compensation with respect to loss of consortium and loss of estate, which are the other conventional heads under which compensation is awarded in the event of death, as recognised by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award “just compensation”, irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant. In exercise of our power under Article 142, and in the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs 15,000 towards loss of estate to Respondents 1 and 2.
21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse: (2013) 9 SCC 54
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”.
21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”.
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's 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 compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848, (2017) 4 RLW 3368, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435, (2014) 3 UC 1687, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74, (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. 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.
25. In light of the abovementioned discussion, Respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to the following amounts:
Head Compensation awarded (i) Income Rs 6000 (ii) Future prospects Rs 2400 (i.e. 40% of the income) (iii) Deduction towards personal expenditure Rs 2800 i.e. ⅓rd of (Rs 6000 + Rs 2400) (iv) Total income Rs 5600 i.e. ⅔rd of (Rs 6000 + Rs 2400) (v) Multiplier 18 (vi) Loss of future income Rs 12,09,600 (Rs 5600 × 12 × 18) (vii) Loss of love and affection Rs 1,00,000 (Rs 50,000 each) (viii) Funeral expenses Rs 15,000 (ix) Loss of estate Rs 15,000 (x) Loss of filial consortium Rs 80,000 (Rs 40,000 payable to each of Respondents 1 and 2) Total compensation awarded Rs 14,25,600 along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.
Out of the amount awarded, Respondent 1 is entitled to 60% while Respondent 2 shall be granted 40% along with interest as specified above.
26. The Insurance Company and Respondent 3 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded. The appellant Insurance Company will pay the full amount of compensation awarded hereinabove to Respondents 1 and 2 and can recover 50% of the amount from Respondent 3.
27. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
Comments