AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.)
The present appeal from order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.10.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT)/ District Judge, Pauri in MACP No.54 of 2008, “Smt. Roshni Devi and Others Vs. Ramswaroop Agarwal and Another”.
The appellants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the MACT. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant no.4, who is father of Shri Jayanand (deceased) died on 13.02.2013. Appellant no.1 is the wife; appellant no.2 and 3 are the children and appellant no.5 is the mother of the deceased.
The claimants have preferred the claim petition before the MACT, Pauri Garhwal, claiming compensation of ₹22,50,000/- on account of death of Shir Jayanand in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Vehicle No.UP 06 4157.
As per the case of the claimants on 27.06.2008, the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the bus and due to the rash and negligent driving, the vehicle fell into a ditch in village Ameli near Data-pul. In the said accident, the driver of the bus alongwith 8 to 10 persons died. The deceased was aged 42 years and was working as Raj Mistry (Skilled Mason) and was stated to be earning ₹10,000/-per month. The owner of the bus was arrayed as respondent no.1 in the claim petition and the New India Insurance Company Limited was arrayed as respondent no.2.
The owner of the vehicle filed his written statement and denied the fact that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving. He, however, submitted that, if the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving, in the said event the responsibility to pay compensation would be of the Insurance Company as the offending vehicle was ensured; the driver was having a valid license; all papers of the offending vehicles were valid and complete. Thus, the owner denied its liability to pay any compensation to the claimants.
The Insurance Company filed its written statement and pleaded that, at the time of accident, the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and its driver was not having the valid and effective driving license; that the vehicle was not having the requisite, effective and valid documents; that the vehicle was being plied in contravention to the Insurance Policy, as such, the claimants were not entitled for any compensation.
The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following issues:
“(1)Whether deceased Jayanand died in an accident on 27-6-2008 at 8:30 A.M. in Sakinkhet-Satpuli Motor road near village Ameli due to the rash and negligent driving of bus No. U.P.06-4157 by its driver?
(2)Whether all the documents of the vehicle in question including driving licence are not valid and effective at the time of accident?
(3)Whether the said vehicle was being plied against the terms and conditions of the policy and permit at the time of accident?
(4)To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimants are entitled and from whom?”
The claimants, in support of their claims, filed affidavit of appellant no.2 (Anish) as APW1 and affidavit of Vinita Devi as APW2. The claimants also filed documentary evidence. The Insurance Company neither filed any oral nor documentary evidence.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be ₹3,000/- per month and discarded the contention of the claimants that deceased was earning ₹10,000/- per month working as a skilled labour (Mason).
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that a certificate (paper no.31/c) was issued by the Gram Pradhan disclosing that the deceased was working as a skilled labour and the appellant no.2 deposed on oath that the deceased was earning ₹10,000/- per month. He contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Jatav Vs. Sukhendra Singh & Ors. 2025 (4) ACC 203 has held that a skilled labour in the year 2002 can be said to be earning ₹6,000/- per month, as such, even the income of ₹10,000/- per month claimed in the year 2008 cannot be said to be exorbitant.
He further submits that no amount towards future prospects and loss of consortium has been awarded and the claimants were entitled for ₹40,000/- per claimants towards loss of consortium.
He further submits that the claimants were entitled for compensation under the head loss of estate and funeral expenses. A computation chart has been filed wherein the appellants have claimed ₹17,65,000/- as compensation along with interest.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1/ insurance company contended that the claimants were not able to prove the income, as such, the Tribunal was justified in considering the monthly income to be ₹3,000/-per month and the amount awarded as compensation to the claimants does not warrant any enhancement.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The learned Tribunal decided issue no.1 in favour of the claimants and held that the eye-witness - Vinita Devi (APW2) supported the averments of the claim petition.
Further, as per the documentary evidence (Paper No.28c/1 to 28c/8), it was proved that the Insurance Company had settled the claim petition of the deceased driver in terms of the compromise and the awarded amount was paid by the Insurance Company. As the claim petition filed by the claimants related to the same accident and in the other claim petition, it was held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company had paid compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased driver, as such, it was proved that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No.UP 06 4157.
Issue no.2 and 3 were decided in favour of the claimants on the basis of the Investigator’s report (paper no.37c/1 to 37/6), according to which, all papers of the offending vehicle were found to be valid. The Insurance Company has not put to challenge the order passed by the learned MACT and the finding recorded with regard to issue no.1 to 3 have become final.
This Court has also considered the records and is in agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal with regard to issue no.1 to 3. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to said issue no.1 to 3.
With regard to issue no.4, which relates to as to what amount of compensation, if any, the claimants are entitled to receive and from whom, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding just compensation to the claimants. The son of the deceased examined himself as APW1 and his wife examined herself as APW2 and deposed that the deceased was working as a skilled labour (Mason) and was constructing house on contract basis.
In the cross-examination also, APW1 contended that the deceased was having various construction work pending. Learned Tribunal discarded the said evidence solely on the ground that there was no documentary proof submitted by the claimants with regard to the income. The learned Tribunal considered the income of deceased to be ₹3,000/- per month and awarded a compensation of ₹3,98,000/- to the appellants.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (2011) 13 SCC 236 in the case of a deceased, who was working as a coolie and claiming income of ₹4,500/- per month, observed that a person working as a coolie cannot be expected to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate its claim. The Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph nos.13, 14 and 15 has held as under:-
“13.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a coolie and was earning Rs 4500 per month at the time of the accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs 3000 only on the assumption that the wages of a labourer during the relevant period viz. in the year 2004, was Rs 100 per day. This assumption in our view has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though the Insurance Company was served, it did not choose to appear before the court nor did it repudiate the claim of the claimant. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning to be a sum of Rs 3000 per month. Secondly, the appellant was working as a coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant.
14.We hasten to add that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guesswork, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time.
15.In the present case, the appellant was working as a coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of a labourer was between Rs 100 to Rs 150 per day or Rs 4500 per month. In our view, the claim was honest and bona fide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the appellant from Rs 4500 to Rs 3000 per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was Rs 4500.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Jatav Vs. Sukhendra Singh & Ors. 2025 INSC 821 in para 6 held that the claim set up by the legal heirs of the deceased who was working as a skilled labour (Mason) in the year 2008 said to be earning ₹6,000/- per month was not exorbitant and the said claim was accepted. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment took into consideration the observation made in the case of Ramachandrappa (supra) wherein income of a Coolie in the year 2004 assessed as ₹4,500/- per month was found to be appropriate.
Thus, the income of the deceased can be assessed as ₹6,000/- per month in view of the fact that he was working as a skilled labour (Mason). The learned Tribunal has correctly applied multiplier of 14 and the deduction of 1/4th towards the personal expenses is also in accordance with law. The learned Tribunal has awarded ₹20,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and has not awarded any amount towards future prospect and consortium.
Admittedly, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 42 years as such in view of para 59.4 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi 2017 (16) SCC 680 the deceased was entitled for 25% towards future prospects. Para 59.4 of the judgment reads as under:
“59.4.In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company (Supra) considered the term ‘consortium’ and held in paragraph nos.35 to 45 as hereunder:
“35.The word “consortium” has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 10th Edn. The Black's Law Dictionary also, simultaneously, notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium in the following manner:
“Consortium1. The benefits that one person, esp. A spouse, is entitled to receive from another, including companionship, cooperation, affection, aid, financial support, and (between spouses) sexual relations a claim for loss of consortium.
•Filial consortium A child's society, affection, and companionship given to a parent.
•Parental consortium A parent's society, affection and companionship given to a child.
•Spousal consortium A spouse's society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse.”
36.In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. [Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 146 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153] as well as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410] , the three-Judge Bench laid down that the consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. In para 87 of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410] , “consortium” to all the three claimants was thus awarded. Para 87 is quoted below:
“87.Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three children as his dependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] and Magma General [Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 146 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153] , the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:
(i)Loss of estate : Rs 15,000
(ii)Loss of consortium:
(a)Spousal consortium : Rs 40,000
(b)Parental consortium : 40,000 × 3 = Rs 1,20,000
(iii)Funeral expenses : Rs 15,000”
37.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] has only referred to spousal consortium and no other consortium was referred to in the judgment of Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] , hence, there is no justification for allowing the parental consortium and filial consortium. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] has referred to amount of Rs 40,000 to the “loss of consortium” but the Constitution Bench had not addressed the issue as to whether consortium of Rs 40,000 is only payable as spousal consortium. The judgment of Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] cannot be read to mean that it lays down the proposition that the consortium is payable only to the wife.
38.The three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410] has categorically laid down that apart from spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable. We feel ourselves bound by the above judgment of the three-Judge Bench. We, thus, cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of consortium awarded to each of the claimants is not sustainable.
39.We, thus, found the impugned judgments [Somwati v. Dharmendra Kumar, 2019 SCC OnLine All , 3897] [Sangita Devi v. New India Assurance Ltd., 2019 , SCC OnLine Del 10877] [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. , Azmati Khatoon, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10530] [Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. , Umarani, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 29630] [Pinki v. Rajeev, , 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11882] [Nanak Chand v. New , India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 62] [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rinku Devi, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10493] of the High Court awarding consortium to each of the claimants in accordance with law which does not warrant any interference in this appeal. We, however, accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no justification for award of compensation under separate head “loss of love and affection”. The appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed insofar as the award of compensation under the head “loss of love and affection”.
40.We may also notice the three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant i.e. Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 327 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 254 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 905] The counsel for the appellant submits that this Court has granted only Rs 40,000 towards “loss of consortium” which is an indication that “consortium” cannot be granted to children. In the above case, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs 20,000 to the widow towards loss of consortium and Rs 10,000 to the minor daughter towards “loss of love and affection”. The High Court has reduced [Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sangita Arya, 2016 SCC OnLine Utt 970] the amount of consortium from Rs 20,000 to Rs 10,000. Para 16 of the judgment is to the following effect : (Sangita Arya case [Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 327 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 254 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 905] , SCC p. 330, para 10)
“10.The consortium payable to the widow was reduced [Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sangita Arya, 2016 SCC OnLine Utt 970] by the High Court from Rs 20,000 (as awarded by MACT) to Rs 10,000; the amount awarded towards loss of love and affection to the minor daughters was reduced from Rs 10,000 to Rs 5000. However, the amount of Rs 5000 awarded by MACT towards funeral expenses was maintained.”
41.This Court in the above case confined its consideration towards the income of the deceased and there was neither any claim nor any consideration that the consortium should have been paid to other legal heirs also. There being no claim for payment of consortium to other legal heirs, this Court awarded Rs 40,000 towards consortium. No such ratio can be deciphered from the above judgment that this Court held that consortium is only payable as a spousal consortium and consortium is not payable to children and parents.
42.It is relevant to notice the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410] which was delivered shortly after the above three-Judge Bench judgment of Sangeeta Arya [Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 327 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 254 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 905] specifically laid down that both spousal and parental consortium are payable which judgment we have already noticed above.
43.We may also notice one more three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in M.H. Uma Maheshwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [M.H. Uma Maheshwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC 400 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 274 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 744] decided on 12-6-2020. In the above case, the Tribunal had granted the amount of rupees one lakh towards loss of consortium to the wife and rupees three lakhs for all the appellants towards loss of love and affection. The High Court in the above case had reduced the amount of compensation in the appeal filed by the insurance company. The High Court held [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.H. Uma Maheshwari, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 6258] that by awarding the amount of rupees one lakh towards loss of consortium to the wife, the Tribunal had committed error while awarding rupees one lakh to the first appellant towards the head of “loss of love and affection”. Allowing the appeal filed by the claimant, this Court maintained the order of MACT.
44.In the above judgment although rendered by the three-Judge Bench, there was no challenge to award of compensation of rupees one lakh towards the consortium and rupees three lakhs towards the loss of love and affection. The appeal was filed only by the claimants and not by the insurance company. The Court did not pronounce on the correctness of the amount awarded under the head “loss of love and affection.
45.We may also notice the additional submission advanced in Civil Appeal No. 3099 of 2020 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 8250 of 2020], Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rinku Devi & Others. As noted above, we have taken the view that the order [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rinku Devi, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10493] of the High Court awarding compensation towards “loss of love and affection” @ Rs 50,000 to each of the claimants is unjustified which is being set aside in this appeal. We, further, in the above appeal also set aside the directions of the High Court in para 9 by which statutory amount along with interest accrued thereon was directed to be deposited in AASRA fund.”
The said view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neelam and Others Vs. Ganga Singh and Others 2026 SCC OnLine SC 888. Thus, the claimants are entitled for ₹40,000/- towards loss of consortium and ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The claimants are, as such, entitled for the following compensation under the different heads:
S.No. Compensation Amount Awarded Heads 1. Monthly Income ₹6,000/-2. Yearly Income ₹72,000/-3. Future Prospects @ 72,000/- + 18,000 = ₹90,000/-25% 4. Multiplier of 14 ₹90,000 x 14 = ₹12,60,000/-5. Deductions 1/4th ₹12,60,000/- » 1/4 = ₹3,15,000, ₹12,60,000 – ₹3,15,000 = ₹9,45,000/-6. Loss of Consortium 40,000 x 4 = ₹1,60,000 7. Funeral Expenses ₹15,000/-8. Loss of Estate ₹15,000/-9. Total Compensation 9,45,000 + 1,60,000 + 15,000 + 15,000 = ₹11,35,000/-
The above amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellants along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition after deducting the amount what has already been paid within a period of two months from today. Appellant no.1 (wife of the deceased) would be entitled to 50% of the awarded compensation with interest. Appellant nos.2 and 3 (children of the deceased) would be entitled to 25% of the amount of compensation with interest and appellant nos.5 (mother of the deceased) shall be entitled to the remaining 25% of the amount of compensation with interest.
With the above observations, the appeal from order is disposed of.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.