Padmavathy v. Salim, Biju and National Insurance Co. Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(MV) NO.791/2009 DATED 30-06-2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **PADMAVATHY, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.LATE MANIYAN, MANNATHARA VEEDU, PADINJARE VETTUKADU, MANJALOOR P.O., ALATHUR TALUK.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** *** 1 SALIM, (DELETED) S/O.HUSSAIN, O.V.HOUSE, 6/224, THEKKEPADAM, NALLALAM, CHERUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE-673008.** ***[2] BIJU, (DELETED) AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KEERAN, KALERIPARAMBATHU VEED, PUTHIYOTTIL, VARATTIYATHAL, KARUMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE-673008.** **3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 2ND FLOOR, NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, P.B.NO.811, KOZHIKODE-673002.** - **R1 AND R2 DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DATED 15.11.2019 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2019.** **BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE, STANDING COUNSEL, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -2- ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.791 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Maniyan, son of the appellant, in a motor accident which occurred on 26.07.2008, while he was changing the tyre of a lorry on the mud margin of National Highway. At the place of accident, he was hit by an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-11/B-3561, owned by the 1[st] respondent, driven by the 2[nd] respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. In the accident, he sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries on 29.07.2008, while undergoing treatment at Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by the 2[nd] respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, under various heads. 2. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained absent and they were set ex-parte. The 3[rd] respondent insurer **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -3- filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the autorickshaw involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 2[nd] respondent driver. 3. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence. 4. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by the 2[nd] respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,90,000/together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, i.e., 16.09.2009 till realisation with cost of Rs.1,500/-. The 3[rd] respondent insurer was directed to satisfy the award. 5. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, the appellant/claimant is before this Court in this appeal. **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -4- 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent insurer. 7. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads. 8. In **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]** the Apex Court laid down the principles governing determination of quantum of compensation in the case of death in a motor accident. The Apex Court held that, the compensation awarded does not become 'just compensation' merely because the Tribunal considers it to be just. Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -5- of death, by following the well settled steps, namely, ascertaining the multiplicand (annual contribution to the family), the multiplier and calculation of loss of dependency by multiplying the multiplicand by such multiplier. 9. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** , a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the Tribunal is quite **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -6- wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, i.e., just compensation. 10. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under ## various heads reads thus; |SL.<br>No<br>.|Head of claim|Amount<br>claimed<br>(in rupees)|Amount<br>awarded (in<br>rupees)|Basis-vital details<br>in a nutshell| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning||Not allowed|| |2|Loss of earning partial|Not claimed|Not allowed|| |3|Medical and miscellaneous<br>expenses|50,000||| |4|Future treatment||Not allowed|| |5|Bystander expenses|3,000|Not allowed|| |6|Transportation expenses|15,000|Not allowed|| |7|Extra nourishment||Not allowed|| |8|Damage to clothing|1,000|Not allowed|| |9|Pain and suffering|25,000|Not allowed|| |10|Loss of dependency|5,00,000|1,68,000|On a just estimate| |11|Loss of consortium|||| |12|Loss of love and affection|50,000|10,000|On a just estimate| |13|Loss of estate|50,000|10,000|On a just estimate| |14|Loss of reduction in earning<br>capacity/protection and<br>guidance||Not allowed|| |15|Loss of amenities and<br>conveniences, pecuniary<br>loss etc.||Not allowed|| |16|Funeral expenses, post<br>mortem expenses|10,000|2,000|On a just estimate| ||**Total**|**6,00,000**|**1,90,000**|Rs.1,90,000/-<br>along with interest<br>at the rate of<br>7.5% p.a. from<br>16.09.2009 till<br>realisation.| 11. The accident occurred on 27.06.2008. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 29 years. It was claimed that, at the time of accident, the deceased was earning a monthly **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -7- income of Rs.6,000/- as Mechanic in a workshop. No materials were placed before the Tribunal to prove the monthly income of the deceased. The appellant has also not chosen to mount the box. In the absence of any reliable materials, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased notionally as Rs.4,000/-. 12. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** the Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a coolie (manual labourer), who met with a road accident in the year 2004, at the age of 35 years, notionally as Rs.4,500/-. The Apex Court held that, the claimant who was working as a coolie cannot be expected 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 the facts of the said case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. The Apex Court made it clear 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 **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -8- realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. 13. In **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735]** , taking note of the earlier decision in **Ramachandrappa's case (supra)** , the Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a vegetable vendor, who met with a road accident in the year 2008, at the age of 24 years, notionally as Rs.6,500/-. In the said decision, the Apex Court held that, a labourer in an unorganised sector doing his own business cannot be expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence to prove his monthly income. Going by the state of economy prevailing at that time and the rising prices in agricultural products, the Apex Court accepted his case that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning 6,500/- per month. 14. In the absence of any reliable evidence, considering **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -9- the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident, i.e., during the year 2008, and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, the monthly income of the deceased, claimed as Rs.6,000/- in the claim petition, cannot be said to be on the higher side, which is taken as the notional monthly income of the deceased, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 15. In **Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** , a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, the determination of 'just compensation' has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in **Sarla Verma [(2009) 6 SCC 121]** and it has been approved in **Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2013) 9 SCC 65]** . The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The Tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -10- well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the Tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for standardization which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. In **Pranay Sethi** the Apex Court approved the principle of 'standardisation' so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age. 16. In **Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh [(2013) 9 SCC 54]** , a Three- Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that, in case of self-employed persons also, if the deceased victim is below 40 years, there must be addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. In **Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma [(2015) 6 SCC 347]** another **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -11- Three- Judge Bench followed the principle stated in **Rajesh** . In **Pranay Sethi** , after expressing the opinion that the dicta laid down in **Reshma Kumari** being earlier in point of time would be a binding precedent and not the decision in **Rajesh** , the Constitution Bench observed that, in **Munna Lal Jain** , the Three-Judge Bench should have been guided by the principle stated in **Reshma Kumari** which has concurred with the view expressed in **Sarla Devi** or in case of disagreement, it should have been well advised to refer the case to a Larger Bench. 17. In **Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** the Constitution Bench held that, while determining the income, an addition of **50%** of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a **permanent job** and was **below the age of 40 years** , should be made. The addition should be **30%** , if the age of the deceased was **between 40 to 50 years** . In case the deceased was between the age of **50 to 60 years** , the addition should be **15%** . Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. The Apex Court held further that, in case the deceased was **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -12- **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. 18. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the deceased was a bachelor aged 29 years. It was claimed that, at the time of accident, the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- as Mechanic in a workshop. In the impugned award, the Tribunal did not add anything to the notional monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects. 19. As already noticed, no reliable materials were placed before the Tribunal to show that, at the time of accident, the deceased had a permanent job. Therefore, the deceased can only be treated as self-employed. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi,** an addition of **40%** of the **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -13- notional monthly income of the deceased, as re-fixed in this appeal considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa** and in **Syed Sadiq** referred to supra, can be made towards future prospects, since the deceased was aged **below 40 years** , in view of the law laid down in **Pranay Sethi** . 20. Therefore, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head loss of dependency, **40%** of the monthly income of the deceased notionally re-fixed in this appeal as Rs.8,400/-, i.e., a sum of Rs.2,400/- (6,000 x 40/100) has to be added towards future prospects. In the result, the monthly income of the deceased, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head loss of dependency, is reckoned as Rs.8,400/- (6,000 + 2,400). 21. In **Sarla Verma [(2009) 6 SCC 121]** , the Apex Court, after referring to its earlier decisions in **Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176]** , **U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362]** and **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -14- ## **New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC** **720]** held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table in paragraph 40 of the said decision [prepared by applying **Susamma Thomas** , **Trilok Chandra** and **Charlie** ], which starts with an operative multiplier of **18** [for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years], reduced by one unit for every five years, i.e., multiplier of **17** for 26 to 30 years, multiplier of **16** for 31 to 35 years, multiplier of **15** for 36 to 40 years, multiplier of **14** for 41 to 45 years, and multiplier of **13** for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, i.e., multiplier of **11** for 51 to 55 years, multiplier of **9** for 56 to 60 years, multiplier of **7** for 61 to 65 years and multiplier of **5** for 66 to 70 years. 22. In **Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, as far as the multiplier is concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of **Sarla Verma** , read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. 23. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 29 years. In the light of the decisions of the **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -15- Apex Court in **Sarla Verma's case** and **Pranay Sethi's case** referred to supra, the multiplier of 7 applied by the Tribunal is not correct and proper and the proper multiplier to be adopted is **17** . 24. In **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]** the Apex Court, on the question of deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased held that, the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from his monthly income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependents. Where the deceased was **married** , the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be **one-third** where the number of dependent family members is **2 to 3** ; **one-fourth** where the number of dependent family members is **4 to 6** ; and **one-fifth** where the number of dependent family members **exceeds 6** . In regard to **bachelors** , normally, **50%** is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -16- parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is **large and dependent on the income of the deceased** , as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to **one-third** and contribution to the family will be taken as **two-third** . 25. In **Reshma Kumari [(2013) 9 SCC 65]** a ThreeJudge Bench of the Apex Court reproduced paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of **Sarla Verma** and approved the same, in paragraph **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -17- 38 of the decision, by stating that, the standards fixed in **Sarla Verma** provide guidance for the appropriate deduction for personal and living expenses. One must bear in mind that the proportion of a man's net earnings that he saves or spends exclusively for the maintenance of others does not form part of his living expenses but what he spends exclusively on himself does. The percentage of deduction on account of personal and living expenses may vary with reference to the number of dependent members in the family and the personal living expenses of the deceased need not exactly correspond to the number of dependants. Therefore, the standards fixed in **Sarla Verma** on the aspect of deduction for personal living expenses in paras 30, 31 and 32 must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure in the circumstances noted in the preceding paragraph is made out. In paragraph 43.6 the Apex Court directed that, insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in **Sarla Verma** , subject to the observations made in para 38 of **Reshma Kumari** . **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -18- 26. In **Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** , the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, after considering the analysis made in **Sarla Verma** , which was reconsidered in **Reshma Kumari** , approved the method provided therein by stating that, as far as the guidance provided for appropriate deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, the Tribunals and Courts should be guided by the conclusion in paragraph 43.6 of **Reshma Kumari** . 27. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the deceased was a bachelor aged 29 years. In the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in **Sarla Verma** , **Reshma Kumari** and **Pranay Sethi** referred to supra, the deduction of **50%** of the notional monthly income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses is perfectly legal. 28. Towards loss of dependency, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,68,000/- (4,000 x 12 x 7 x 1/2). In this appeal, the monthly income of the deceased has already been re-fixed as Rs.6,000/-. Adding 40% of the notional monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects (6,000 + 2,400 = 8,400); deducting 50% towards the personal and living **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -19- expenses of the deceased; and applying the multiplier of 17, the compensation under the head loss of dependency is refixed as Rs.8,56,800/- (8,400 x 12 x 17 x 1/2), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.6,88,800/-** (8,56,800 – 1,68,000). 29. In the impugned award, towards funeral expenses the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-. Towards loss of love and affection, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of estate. 30. In **Rajesh [(2013) 9 SCC 54]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court granted Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. 31. In **Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that the head relating to loss of care and guidance for minor children does not exist. Though **Rajesh** refers to **Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited [(2012) 6 SCC 421]** , it does **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -20- not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The Court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the Tribunals and Courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, the reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, **loss of estate** , **loss of consortium** and **funeral expenses** should be **Rs.15,000/-** , **Rs.40,000/-** and **Rs.15,000/-** respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantumcentric. The Apex Court observed that, it would be condign that the amounts that have quantified as above should be enhanced **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -21- on percentage basis **in every three years** and the enhancement should be at the rate of **10% in a span of three years** , which will bring in consistency in respect of those heads. 32. In **Santosh Devi v. Mahaveer Singh [(2018) 9 SCC 146]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court granted compensation on conventional heads, in terms of the figures standardised by the Constitution Bench in the year 2017, in **Pranay Sethi** , to the wife and children of one Puran Chand, who died in a motor accident, which occurred on **30.12.1992** . 33. In **Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi v. New India Assurance Company Limited [(2018) 15 SCC 649]** the Apex Court granted the figures on conventional heads standardised by the Constitution Bench in the year 2017, in **Pranay Sethi** , i.e., Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate; Rs.40,000/towards loss of consortium; and Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses to the parents [appellants before the Apex Court], who lost their only daughter in a motor accident which occurred on **16.08.1998** . In the said decision, Rs.40,000/- granted in **Pranay Sethi** towards loss of consortium was granted to the **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -22- appellants, who are the **parents** of the deceased, towards **loss of love and affection** . Paragraphs 1 and 14 of the said decision read thus; “ **1.** Fate can be cruel. This is a tragic case where the only daughter of a lawyer husband and a doctor wife, who got married early and unfortunately became a widow also at a young age, died in a vehicular accident, which took place on **16.8.1998** . The claim of the parents (appellants herein) in respect of this unfortunate demise forms the subject matter of the present appeal. xxx xxx xxx **14.** Now coming to the last aspect, i.e., the conventional heads, in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** , it has been standardised at Rs.15,000 for loss of estate; Rs.40,000 towards loss of consortium (in the present case loss of love and affection) and Rs.15,000 towards funeral expenses. The total amount, thus, would be Rs.70,000, which as per the said judgment is capable of being enhanced @ 10 per cent in the span of every three years. However, we are still within the window of three years.” “underline supplied” 34. In **Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram [(2018) 18 SCC 130]** , after referring to the decision in **Pranay Sethi** , the Apex Court held that in legal parlance, 'consortium' is a compendious term which **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -23- encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium' and 'filial consortium'. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. **Spousal consortium** is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the **surviving spouse** for loss of 'company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation'. **Parental consortium** is granted to the **child** upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training'. **Filial consortium** is the right of the **parents** to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their **love** , **affection** , companionship and their role in the family unit. 35. In **Magma General Insurance** the Apex Court held **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -24- that consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over 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. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In a case where parents have 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 Motor Vehicles Act. The Apex Court held further that, the amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the **principles** of awarding compensation under 'loss of consortium' as laid down in **Pranay Sethi** . **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -25- 36. In **Magma General Insurance** , the deceased was aged 24 years, who was engaged in the business of manufacturing 'namkeen products', who died in a motor accident which occurred on 01.12.2013. The **father** , **brother** and **sister** of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Claims Tribunal did not award any compensation to the **brother** of the deceased, as he could not be considered to be a dependent. Compensation was awarded to the **father** and **unmarried sister** of the deceased, who were held to be dependents. The father and sister of the deceased filed appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The High Court found that the Claims Tribunal used the wrong principle for application of multiplier. The multiplier ought to have been taken on the basis of the age of the deceased and not that of his father. The High Court, while re-assessing the compensation granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rs.50,000/- x 2) towards loss of love and affection to the father and unmarried sister of the deceased. The insurer filed S.L.P. before the Apex Court contending, inter alia, that the **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -26- father and sister of the deceased could not be considered as dependants, and were not entitled to compensation. In case of death of bachelor, only the mother could be considered to be a dependant. The grant of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of love and affection, and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses is erroneous. It was contended that only Rs.30,000/- could have been awarded as per the judgment in **Pranay Sethi** . [i.e., loss of estate - Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses – Rs.15,000/-] The Apex Court held that, considering that the deceased was living in a village, where he was residing with his aged father, who was about 65 years old, and an unmarried sister, the High Court correctly considered them to be dependants of the deceased, and made a deduction of 1/3[rd] towards personal expenses of the deceased. [Para.16 @ page 135 of SCC] The Apex Court found that the deceased was a bachelor, whose mother had **pre-deceased** him. The father of the deceased was about 65 years old and his sister was unmarried. The deceased was **contributing** a part of his meagre income to the family for their sustenance and survival. Therefore, the Apex Court held that the father and unmarried sister of the deceased **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -27- would be entitled to compensation under his dependants. [Para.18 @ page 136 of SCC] Dealing with the contention of the insurer that the High Court had wrongly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Apex Court, after quoting Para.52 of the decision in **Pranay Sethi** , decreased the compensation under the head funeral expenses from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. However, the amount awarded under the head loss of love and affection was maintained. After explaining the concept of **spousal consortium** , **parental consortium** and **filial consortium** , the Apex Court deem it appropriate to award the father and unmarried sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of filial consortium. 37. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi** , which was followed in **Santhosh Devi** and **Suresh Chandra Bagmaldoshi** referred to supra, the compensation payable under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, 40,000/- and **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -28- Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid figures quantified by the Apex Court should be enhanced on percentage basis, at the rate of 10%, in a span of every three years. 38. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Magma General Insurance Company Ltd** ., after referring to the decision in **Pranay Sethi** , the surviving spouse is entitled for spousal consortium; children of the deceased are entitled for parental consortium; and parents of a deceased child, who died in a motor accident, are entitled for filial consortium. The amount of compensation that has to be awarded will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under the head loss of consortium, as laid down in **Pranay Sethi** . 39. In **Indian Bank v. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 72]** one of the contentions raised was that, any direction issued by the Apex Court in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do proper justice and the reasons, if any, given for exercising such power, cannot be considered as law laid down by that Court under Article 141. It was also pointed out that, other Courts do not have the power similar to that conferred on the Apex Court **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -29- under Article 142 and any attempt to follow the exercise of such power will lead to incongruous and disastrous results. The Apex Court left open that question, observing as follows; "Though there appears to be some merit in the first respondent's submission, we do not propose to examine that aspect." Though the said question was left open, the Apex Court observed as follows in Para.26 of the judgment; "26. ….... Many a time, after declaring the law, this Court in the operative part of the judgment, gives some directions which may either relax the application of law or exempt the case on hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts or in view of the uncertainty of law till then, to do complete justice. While doing so, normally it is not stated that such direction/order is in exercise of power under Article 142. It is not uncommon to find that Courts have followed not the law declared, but the exemption/ relaxation made while moulding the relief in exercise of power under Article 142. When the High Courts repeatedly follow a direction issued under Article 142, by treating it as the law declared by this Court, incongruously the exemption/ relaxation granted under Article 142 becomes the law, though at variance with the law declared by this Court. The Courts should therefore be careful to ascertain and follow the ratio decidendi, and not the relief given on the special facts, exercising power under Article 142. …..." **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -30- 40. In **State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [(2014) 8 SCC** **883]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court affirmed the view taken in **ABS Marine Products' case (supra)** holding that, the directions issued under Article 142 do not constitute a binding precedent unlike Article 141 of the Constitution of India. They are direction issued to do proper justice and exercise of such power, cannot be considered as law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court held further that, the directions of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, while moulding the relief, that relax the application of law or exempt the case in hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances do not comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore lose its basic premise of making it a binding precedent. Paras.11 to 13 of the judgment read thus; "11. Article 136 of the Constitution of India was legislatively intended to be exercised by the Highest Court of the Land, with scrupulous adherence to the settled judicial principle well established by precedents in our jurisprudence. Article 136 of the Constitution is a corrective jurisdiction that vests a discretion in the Supreme Court to settle the law clearly and make the law operational to make it a binding precedent for the **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -31- future instead of keeping it vague. In short, it declares the law, as under Article 141 of the Constitution. 12. Article 142 of the Constitution is supplementary in nature and cannot supplant the substantive provisions, though they are not limited by the substantive provisions in the Statute. It is a power that gives preference to equity over law. It is a justice oriented approach as against the strict rigors of the law. The directions issued by the Court can normally be categorised into one, in the nature of moulding of relief and the other, as the declaration of law. 'Declaration of Law' as contemplated in Article 141 of the Constitution: is the speech express or necessarily implied by the Highest Court of the land. This Court in the case of **Indian Bank v. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 72]** , **Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar [(2006) 8 SCC 381]** and in **State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi [(2006) 1 SCC 667]** , has expounded the principle and extolled the power of Article 142 of the Constitution of India to new heights by laying down that the directions issued under Article 142 do not constitute a binding precedent unlike Article 141 of the Constitution of India. They are direction issued to do proper justice and exercise of such power, cannot be considered as law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Court has compartmentalised and differentiated the relief in the operative portion of the judgment by exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution as against the law declared. The directions **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -32- of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, while moulding the relief, that relax the application of law or exempt the case in hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances do not comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore lose its basic premise of making it a binding precedent. This Court on the qui vive has expanded the horizons of Article 142 of the Constitution by keeping it outside the purview of Article 141 of the Constitution and by declaring it a direction of the Court that changes its complexion with the peculiarity in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. Therefore, in our opinion, the decisions of the Court based on different scales of Article 136 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be best weighed on the same grounds of reasoning and thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no conflict in the views expressed in the first two judgments and the latter judgment." 41. In **Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.** , the Apex Court maintained the compensation awarded by the High Court at the rate of Rs.50,000/- to the father and unmarried sister of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. However, the compensation under the head funeral expenses was decreased from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, after quoting para 52 of the decision in **Pranay Sethi** . After explaining the **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -33- concept of spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium, the Apex Court awarded the father and unmarried sister of the deceased an amount of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of filial consortium. 42. As already noticed, the compensation that has to be awarded to the surviving spouse towards spousal consortium; to the children of the deceased towards parental consortium; or to the parents of the deceased child towards filial consortium, is for loss of **love and affection** and such other matters. In such circumstances, once the surviving spouse is awarded compensation towards spousal consortium; or the children of the deceased are awarded compensation towards parental consortium; or the parents of the deceased child are awarded compensation towards filial consortium, they are not entitled for award of further compensation under the head loss love and affection, as it would result in duplication or overlapping of compensation under the relevant heads. 43. The concept of spousal consortium to the surviving spouse; parental consortium to the children of the deceased; and filial consortium to the parents of the deceased child laid **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -34- down by the Apex Court in **Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.** does not speak anything as to the right of **siblings** to get compensated under the head loss of consortium. In **Magma** , after noticing the fact that the mother of the deceased had pre-deceased him, his father was aged 65 years old, his sister was unmarried, and the deceased was **contributing** a part of his meagre income to the family for their sustenance and survival, the Apex Court granted a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation to unmarried sister of the deceased under the head filial consortium, after maintaining the compensation (Rs.50,000/- x 2) awarded by the High Court towards loss of love and affection, which can only be treated as a direction issued by the Apex Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do proper justice and the exercise of such power cannot be considered as law laid down by the Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 44. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi** and **Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.** referred to supra, Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -35- the impugned award towards funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, resulting an an additional compensation of **Rs.13,000/-** (15,000 - 2,000); Rs.10,000/- awarded towards love and affection to the appellant is re-fixed as Rs.40,000/and the same is granted under the head filial consortium to the said appellant, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.30,000/-** (40,000 - 10,000). 45. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards loss of estate. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** an amount Rs.15,000/- can be granted under the head loss of estate. Accordingly, the appellant is granted a sum of Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.5,000/-** (15,000 - 10,000). 46. The Tribunal awarded no compensation towards pain and suffering of the deceased. 47. In **Jyni and others v. Raphel P.T. and others [2016 (2) KHC 870]** a Division Bench of this Court held that, death in an accident is generally the result of violent impact on the body resulting in serious injuries causing severe pain. The **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -36- magnitude of the ordeal may vary from case to case depending upon the nature of injuries sustained. In cases of instantaneous deaths also pain and suffering is invariably present, as in the case of survival for hours or days. In cases of instantaneous death as well as cases where the deceased was unconscious between the time of accident and the time of his death, some notional amount is payable under the head pain and suffering. A slightly higher amount can be awarded under this head, if the death is not instantaneous. Therefore, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/- could be awarded under the head pain and suffering in such cases. 48. In the instant case, the deceased succumbed to the injuries after undergoing in-patient treatment for a period of 3 days. Considering the nature of injuries, this Court deem it appropriate to grant a sum of **Rs.15,000/-** towards pain and suffering of the deceased. 49. Towards transportation expenses, no amount has been granted by the Tribunal. The accident occurred at Kunnamangalam-Koduvally Road and the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at Medical College **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -37- Hospital, Kozhikode. Therefore, this Court deem it appropriate to grant a sum of **Rs.5,000/-** under the head transportation expenses. 50. Towards extra nourishment and bystander expenses, no compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2009, this Court deem it appropriate to grant a sum of **Rs.450/-** (150 x 3) under the head extra nourishment and a further sum of **Rs.600/-** (200 x 3) under the head bystander expenses. 51. In the result, the appellant/claimant is entitled for payment of an additional compensation of **Rs.7,57,850/-** (Rupees seven lakh fifty seven thousand eight hundred and fifty only) [6,88,800 + 13,000 + 30,000 + 5,000 + 15,000 + 5,000 + 450 + 600] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of **8%** per annum from the date of petition till realisation, excluding the period of delay of 382 days in filing this appeal, which was condoned by order dated 15.11.2019 subject to the condition that in case enhanced compensation is awarded, the appellant will not be entitled for the said amount for the period of delay. The 3[rd] respondent/insurer shall satisfy **MACA.No.2253 OF 2013** -38- the additional compensation granted in this appeal, together with interest, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting the liability, if any, of the appellant/claimant towards Balance Court Fee and Legal Benefit Fund. Disbursement of the additional compensation to the appellant/claimant shall be made taking note of the law on the point and in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified further in Official Memorandum No. D1-62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019. This appeal is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** bpr