Harpreet Kaur & Ors. Vs Mohinder Yadav & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Conclusion: The Hon’ble Supreme Court enhanced compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act on basis of filial and parental consortium.
Facts: In present matter, the appellants are aggrieved by the final judgment1 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which partly allowed their first appeal, enhancing the compensation awarded to the petitioners from ₹ 6,60,000 (with 6% interest) to ₹ 17,66,000 (with 7.5% interest). The appellants’ grievance is that the High Court erred in computation of compensation for loss of income, and failed to award any amount under the head of “loss of love and affection”, while computing the final compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (here after, “MV Act”).
On 29.09.2004, the deceased, late Jagjit Singh was returning from Chandigarh in a car with two other passengers, when a negligently driven truck collided with their car. Grievously injured, he was transferred to the hospital for medical attention, but succumbed to his injuries. The claimant-petitioners instituted a claim before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereafter, “MACT”) under Section 166 of the MV Act, on 23.02.2005.
The MACT concluded that Jagjit Singh had died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving, and partly allowed the claim with a lump sum award of ₹6,60,000. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the High Court in 2007. The High Court by the impugned judgment, partly allowed the first appeal and enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 17,66,000 (with 7.5% interest). While all three respondents (driver, owner of truck and insurer) were held to be joint and severally liable, since the truck was duly insured by the third respondent, the latter was held liable to pay the entire assessed compensation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that even while the High Court increased the level of income, it did not address the issue in the correct perspective. The documentary evidence on record showed that the deceased was cultivating 66 acres, and was entitled to a third of the value of produce from income of those agricultural lands. In addition, he owned and was getting over 12 acres cultivated. The admitted returns were to the tune of ₹ 95,000/-. According to the first appellant (the deceased’s wife) the deceased’s income was ₹ 1,00,000/- per month; the claim was for an extent of ₹ 1 crore. Whilst there is no evidence for the latter amount, the documentary evidence supported the appellant’s case in regard to cultivation of extensive lands. Having regard to these facts, the assessment of income @ ₹ 95,000/- appears to be on the lower end, and insufficient. It would in the circumstances of the case, be appropriate that the actual income should be computed @ ₹ 1,50,000/- per annum. Applying 40% towards future prospects, the total annual income ( ₹ 1,50,000 + ₹ 60,000) amounts to ₹ 2,10,000. With a 1/4th deduction (4 dependents), the annual loss of dependency ( ₹ 2,10,000 – ₹52,500) would be ₹ 1,57,500. Applying a multiplier of 16, total loss of dependency (i.e., 1,57,500 x 16) is Rs. 25,20,000.
It was further observed that the appellants had urged that the amount towards loss of consortium awarded – especially in favor of the fourth petitioner, is too low. A sum of ₹ 40,000/- was awarded towards spousal consortium and ₹1,00,000/- towards filial and parental consortium.
Reliance was placed upon Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130, wherein it was observed as under:
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine 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.7 However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.”
On basis of above it was held that the filial and parental consortium have to be increased. Each of the children, and the mother of the deceased, is entitled to ₹ 40,000/-. Thus, the total amount payable towards filial and parental consortium is ₹ 1,20,000/-.
The appellants were entitled to ₹ 25,20,000/- towards loss of dependency; and the three appellants being the children and mother of the deceased, are entitled to ₹ 40,000/- each towards filial and parental consortium.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Leave granted. With consent of counsel for the parties, the appeal was heard finally.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the final judgment1 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which partly allowed their first appeal, enhancing the compensation awarded to the petitioners from ₹ 6,60,000 (with 6% interest) to ₹ 17,66,000 (with 7.5% interest). The appellants’ grievance is that the High Court erred in computation of compensation for loss of income, and failed to award any amount under the head of “loss of love and affection”, while computing the final compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (here after, “MV Act”).
Facts
3. On 29.09.2004, the deceased, late Jagjit Singh was returning from Chandigarh in a car with two other passengers, when a negligently driven truck collided with their car. Grievously injured, he was transferred to the hospital for medical attention, but succumbed to his injuries. The claimant-petitioners instituted a claim before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereafter, “MACT”) under Section 166 of the MV Act, on 23.02.2005.
4. It is an admitted fact (before both forums) that the deceased, who was primarily a farmer/agriculturist, was 35 years old at the time of the incident and was survived by his wife, two minor children, and his mother (4 claimants). The MACT concluded that Jagjit Singh had died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving, and partly allowed the claim with a lump sum award of ₹6,60,000.2 Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the High Court in 2007, on the ground that the MACT had only considered the sauni crops, and not the rabi/harri crops which were also cultivated on the lands. The High Court by the impugned judgment, partly allowed the first appeal and enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 17,66,000 (with 7.5% interest). While all three respondents (driver, owner of truck and insurer) were held to be joint and severally liable, since the truck was duly insured by the third respondent, the latter was held liable to pay the entire assessed compensation.
5. The calculation undertaken and determination of compensation by the MACT and High Court, are summarized in tabular format below:
