DINESH PRASAD & ORS. vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS.

$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 05.10.2023

+ MAC.APP. 255/2022
DINESH PRASAD & ORS. ….. Appellants
Through: Mr.Anshuman Bal and Mr.Manish Maini, Advs.

versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS.
….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-1.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal challenges the Award dated 05.10.2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Award’) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in MACT No.472/2018, titled as Dinesh Prasad & Ors. v. Mannu Prasad & Ors..
2. It was the case of the claimants/appellants herein before the learned Tribunal that on 10.12.2017 at about 8 PM, the deceased Mainawati along with the appellant no.1 and other passengers were going in a tempo. When they reached near Salempur, Navalpur main road near Bank of Baroda, Uttar Pradesh, suddenly an Eco Sport car bearing registration no. UP 56K 8181 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) came from behind at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit the tempo. The deceased and the other passengers received serious injuries. In the course of her treatment, the deceased unfortunately died.
3. The learned Tribunal by its Impugned Award has held that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, resulting in the death of the deceased.
4. As far as compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Keith Rowe v. Prashant Sagar, 2011 ACJ 1734, has held that the claimants/appellants were entitled to compensation under the head of loss of estate quantified as 1/3rd of the income of the deceased.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that subsequently in the case of Indrawati & Anr. v. Ranbir Singh & Ors., Neutral Citation 2021:DHC:77, this Court has clarified that the principles relating to loss of estate in Keith Rowe (Supra) are not applicable inter alia in the case of a claim of children in respect of the death of their parents. He also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ram Charan & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., Neutral Citation 2022/DHC/004590.
6. Other challenges of the appellants to the Impugned Award are on account of the non-grant of compensation towards loss of estate, and loss of consortium being awarded only at Rs.40,000/-.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
8. This Court in Indrawati (Supra) has held as under:
“20. In view of the law well settled by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court holds that the parents of the deceased child are considered as dependents for computation of compensation. The principles laid down in Keith Rowe (supra) and Dinesh Adhlak v. Pritam Singh, ILR (2010) 5 Del 463, would not apply to the claim for compensation by the parents in respect of their child, as it is in the present case. The principles relating to the loss to the estate referred to in Keith Rowe (supra) and Dinesh Adhlak (supra) would also not apply in respect of the claim of a spouse for compensation in respect of death of his/her spouse, as well as children’s claim for compensation in respect of death of their parents. In that view of the matter, the principles relating to the loss to the estate shall apply only to claimants other than parents, children and spouse.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. Keeping in view the above, at least the claimant nos.2 and 3 would have been entitled to loss of dependency as they were dependant on the deceased as on the date of the accident, being students. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr (2009) 6 SCC 121, only a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses could have been made from the income of the deceased. The Impugned Award shall stand modified to this extent and the compensation enhanced accordingly.
10. I also find merit in the other challenge of the learned counsel for the appellants. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Supreme Court has held that the conventional heads of compensation would be Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that in the present case, the loss of consortium has been awarded as Rs.40,000/- to the appellants and, therefore, deserves no enhancement. He places reliance on the judgment dated 27.03.2023 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2410-2412 of 2023, titled Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagat Singh Rawat & Ors..
12. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent.
13. As far as the loss of consortium is concerned, the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur & Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780, considering the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), has observed as under:-
“29. Loss of consortium, in legal parlance, was historically given a narrow meaning to be awarded only to the spouse i.e. the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. 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 for awarding compensation in various jurisdictions such as the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have recognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement.
30. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 this Court interpreted “consortium” to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as 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.
31. 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 and affection, and their role in the family unit.
32. Modern jurisdictions world over have recognized 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 permit parents to be awarded compensation under the loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love and affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
33. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of 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 the children who lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents. The amount to be awarded for loss of consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi.
34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and the High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Magma General, this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
35. The Tribunals and the High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head.
xxxx
37.12 Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh has left behind a widow and three children as his dependents. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi and Magma General, the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads :
(i) Loss of estate: Rs.15,000/-
(ii) Loss of consortium:
(a) Spousal consortium: Rs.40,000/-
(b) Parental consortium: Rs.40,000 x 3
=Rs,1,20,000/-
(iii) Funeral expenses: Rs15,000/-”
14. In Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683, and Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 780 also, the Supreme Court has awarded compensation towards loss of consortium to each of the claimants therein.
15. In Bhagat Singh Rawat (supra) also, the Supreme Court observed as under:
“We are, however, of the view that the total amount has to be assigned under a particular heading and that will go depending on the number of legal heirs present.
The amounts fixed in terms of Pranay Sethi’s case(supra) are Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively under the two heads and that should be the total amount payable.”
(Emphasis supplied)

16. In Bhagat Singh Rawat (supra), the attention of the Supreme Court was not drawn to the judgment of Satinder Kaur (supra). In any case, the Supreme Court has held that the compensation will depend on the number of legal heirs present.
17. Therefore, each of the claimants shall be entitled to compensation towards loss of consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/-.
18. In addition, the claimants shall also be entitled to loss of estate at the rate of Rs.15,000/-. The Award shall stand modified to this extent.
19. The respondent no.1 shall deposit the enhanced amount along with the interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today. The same shall be released in favour of the claimants/appellants in terms of the schedule of disbursal as stipulated by the learned Tribunal in the Impugned Award.
20. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
21. There shall be no order as to costs.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J
OCTOBER 5, 2023/ns/AS

MAC.APP. 255/2022 Page 1 of 8