HARPREET KAUR v. MOHINDER YADAV

1. Leave granted. With consent of counsel for the parties, the appeal was heard finally.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by the final judgment[1] 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”,

1 Final judgment dated 18.03.2019 in FAO No. 2228/2007 (O&M) passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 2022 INSC 1283 while computing the final compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter, “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 lumpsum 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

2 Order dated 25.01.2007 in MAC No. 2 of 23.02.2005. 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 summarised in tabular format below:

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│          Sl.     Head of compensation                  MACT                 High Court        │
│          No.                                                                                  │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│          1.      Actual income                         ₹65,0003 p.a.        ₹ 95,000 p.a.     │
│          2.      Future prospects                      Not awarded          40% (i.e.         │
│                                                                             ₹ 38,000 p.a.)    │
│          3.      Deduction towards personal 1/3                             1/4      (i.e.,   │
│                  expenses                                                   ₹33,250)          │
│          4.      Multiplier                    15                           16                │
│          5.      Loss of dependency            ₹ 6,45,000                   ₹ 15,96,000       │
│                  annual income with the                                                       │
│                  addition of future prospects,                                                │
│                  and adjusting deduction                                                      │
│                  towards personal expenses x                                                  │
│                  multiplier                                                                   │
│          6.      Loss of spousal consortium    Not awarded                  ₹ 40,000          │
│          7.      Loss of parental and filial Not awarded                ₹1,00,000             │
│                  consortium                                             (consolidated)        │
│          8.      Loss of estate              Not awarded                ₹ 15,000              │
│          9.      Funeral expenses            ₹ 15,000                   ₹ 15,000              │
│                                                                         ₹ 17,66,000 at        │
│                                                        ₹ 6,60,000 at                          │
│                  Total                                                  7.5% interest         │
│                                                        6% interest p.a.                       │
│                                                                         p.a.                  │
│ Contentions                                                                                   │
│ 6.      It was argued before this court, that the deceased was a farmer who                   │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions worldover 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.[7] However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.”

13. On an application of the principles indicated in Magma General Insurance Co., this court is of the opinion that the filial and parental consortium

7 Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848: (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435: (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74: (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570. 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/-. ₹

14. In view of the above findings, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The appellants are 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. The impugned judgment ₹ is modified to the above extent; the rate of interest, and the other components, directed to be payable, are left undisturbed. The appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs..…… ............................................ J. [KRISHNA MURARI] ..................................................... J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 15, 2022.