Mona Kumari Dokania v. Surender Kumar Singh

1. The petitioner in this case is a minor and still waiting for just and fair compensation for the loss of her family which included her parents and two minor siblings in an accident. She had filed Suit Nos. 55/2006, 56/2006, 57/2005 and 58/2005 under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. All the suits were disposed of by the tribunal vide its common order dated 3rd November, 2007.

3. Since the appeals are resulted out of a common order of the Tribunal, the same are disposed of vide this common order.

4. The brief facts in all these suits are that on 07.06.2002 at about

2.25 p.m. the family of the appellant, namely Ramesh Dokania (father), Mrs.Sunita Devi Dokania (mother), Master Nikunj Dokania and Master Vivek Dokania (both brothers) were going on a pilgrimage tour ‘Badri Ka Dham’ and were travelling along with other passengers in a Tata Sumo bearing no.UA-07C-9648. The driver of the said Tata Sumo was driving the vehicle at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which Tata Sumo fell down into the Yamuna river at Saya Chatti, Barkot, Uttranchal. All the occupants of the Tata Sumo along with its driver died in the said accident either on account of injuries sustained or due to drowning. The dead bodies of Mrs.Sunita Dokania and Master Vivek Dokania could be recovered, whereas the dead bodies of Mr.Ramesh Dokania and Master Nikunj Dokania could not be recovered. FIR bearing no.27/02 under Sections 279/304A IPC was registered at Police Station Barkot, Uttranchal. The respondent no.1 is the owner of the vehicle and respondent no.2 is the insurance company. These petitions had been filed by the minor Ms.Mona through her maternal uncle Mr.Mukesh Kumar.

5. In the trial, it was deposed that all the occupants of Tata Sumo including driver had died in the said accident. It is admitted fact that the said Sumo was duly insured under a valid policy. The learned Tribunal has reached to the conclusion, on the basis of the evidence on record that accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo which has resulted into the death of all its occupants including the parents and the brothers of the appellant. The tribunal has also reached to the conclusion that primarily respondent no.2 i.e. the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. There is no challenge to these findings of the Tribunal. The findings, therefore, had attained finality. MAC.APP.699/2007 in Suit no.58/2005

6. In this case the compensation of a sum of Rs.7,09,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7 % was awarded on account of death of Sh.Ramesh, the father of the appellant, out of which Rs.6,89,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency. It is submitted that it is not just and fair compensation. It is submitted that the deceased, Mr.Ramesh Kumar was 32 years of age and that the tribunal has not applied the correct multiplier. It is argued that as per the findings in the case (2009) 6 SCC 121 titled as Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, the Tribunal ought to have used the multiplier of 16. It is argued that proper and just compensation under the head of loss of love, company and affection etc. has not been awarded just by the tribunal. It is prayed that award be enhanced along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

7. Admittedly, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 32 years. The multiplier used by the Tribunal was 13. The Tribunal ought to have used multiplier of 16 in this case as per Sarla Verma’s case (supra). There is no challenge to the multiplicand which the Tribunal has used. The tribunal has arrived at a multiplicand of Rs.53,000/-. The total loss of dependency, therefore, comes to Rs.53,000/- x 16 = 8,48,000/-

8. The appellant has also prayed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/-, towards loss of estate.

9. In a recent judgment in case (2013) 9 SCC 54 titled as Rajesh and others V. Rajbir Singh & Ors, the hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the grant of compensation towards loss love and affection, funeral charges and non pecuniary damages and has observed as under: “...17. 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.. 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 Verma’s case, 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 nonpecuniary 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 spouse’s 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.

10. I, thus, award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, and Rs. 10,000/- towards Loss of Estate.

11. I award total compensation as under: Loss of dependency Rs.8,48,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs.9,58,000/-

12. I also enhance the interest from 7% to 9% per annum.

13. No funeral expenses are granted in this case since the dead body of the deceased could not be recovered and cremated.

14. In view of the above discussion, I award a total compensation of Rs.9,58,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.