Full Text
Date of Decision: 05.09.2019
7614/2019 SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sunanda Nimisha and Surjan Singh, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh, Mr. Ravish Singh, Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Ms. Akanksha Singh and Mr. Awanish Gupta, Advocates for R-1 & R-2.
JUDGMENT
1. The award of compensation dated 05.06.2018 in MACT 449240/16 is impugned on the ground that the father of the deceased is the only person dependent, who should have been granted any compensation. It is contended that since the widow of the deceased had remarried in 2015 and she had relinquished her rights in favour of her father-inlaw, she ought not to have been awarded any compensation.
2. The motor vehicular accident that cruelly snuffed-out the life of the young 30 year old deceased occurred on 29.06.2012 (erroneously recorded in the impugned order as 26.09.2012; the DAR filed on 06.08.2012 had also recorded that the accident happened on 2019:DHC:4410 29.06.2012). A claim petition for compensation was filed on 30.08.2012. At that time, the claimant/widow was not remarried, therefore, she had every right for adjudication apropos compensation. The award was passed on 05.06.2018. Her claim for compensation had crystallised on the date of the accident and subsequent change in her personal/marital status would not come in the way of her claim.
3. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that compensation for ‘loss of consortium’ is not justified, because she remarried. This is an untenable argument because the loss is of consortium of her deceased husband i.e. of her deprivation of the togetherness, the companionship, the intimacy with him. The fact that she has graciously and honourably relinquished all her rights in the compensation in favour of her bereaved father-in-law, is an issue between her and her in-laws. Surely, the insurer cannot have any say apropos how she deals with her monies. It was her first marriage. Both she and the deceased were younger when the ill-fated accident occurred. The marital cohabitation in younger age has a lifetime of memories and forms an essential basis for the future of the matrimony. It holds special meaning for the couple. In a society like ours which is steeped in traditions and conservative values, the first physical association with one’s spouse has immense psychological and emotional significance. It cannot be treated lightly. Sudden loss of the young spouse in a motor vehicular accident would have a devastating effect on the emotional, psychological and physical health of the surviving spouse for which the compensation needs to be awarded. The survivor’s re-marriage, would be a separate chapter in her/his life and it cannot replace the ‘loss of consortium’ with deceased spouse. Therefore, the award for ‘loss of consortium’ was right, there is no reason to either delete or reduce it.
4. Accordingly, each of the claimants shall be entitled to ‘loss of consortium’ @ Rs. 40,000/-. Compensation under this head was awarded to only one of the two claimants at the rate of Rs. 40,000/-, the same is erroneous and needs to be revised in terms of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- to each of the claimants be it for ‘loss of spousal consortium’ or ‘loss of filial consortium’. Additionally, each of the claimants shall also be entitled to compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ @ Rs. 50,000/in terms of Magma (Supra). Therefore, the enhanced amount granted by this Court is as under:- S.No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000 x 2 (claimants) Rs. 1,00,000/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000 x 2 (claimants) less Rs. 40,000/- (already awarded) Rs. 40,000/- TOTAL Rs. 1,40,000/-
5. Hence, the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- in terms of the above, be paid to the beneficiaries of the award to be released to the father right away alongwith interest accrued there on at the same rate and from the same date as mentioned in the impugned order in terms of the scheme of disbursement specified therein.
6. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant be paid to the persons as costs of this litigation.
7. The appeal, alongwith the applications, stands disposed-off in the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J SEPTEMBER 05, 2019