INDRAWATI & ANR  Vs RANBIR SINGH & ORS

MAC.APP. 623/2019 Page 1 of 12 $~
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%

Date of Decision : 8th January, 2021
+ MAC.APP. 623/2019

INDRAWATI & ANR . ….. Appellants
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Chauriha ,
Advocate

versus

RANBIR SINGH & ORS . ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Atul Nigam, Advocate along with
Mr. Anubhav Tyagi and Mr. Randhir
Kumar, Advocates for R -3

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

J U D G M E N T

1. The appellants have challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal
whereby compen sation of Rs.2,42,382.16 along with interest @ 9% per
annum from 30th October, 2013 h as been awarded to appellants. The
appellants seek enhancement of the award amount.
2. The accident dated 08th October, 2008 resulted in the death of Naveen .
The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and was survived
by his parents who claimed compensation. As per the claim petition, the
deceased was self employed as a Contractor earning Rs.55,000/ – to
Rs.60,000/ – per month.
3. Appellant No.1 is the mother of the deceased who appeared in the
witness box as PW -1 and deposed that the deceased was working as a
2021:DHC:77
MAC.APP. 623/2019 Page 2 of 12 Manager under a Government Contractor and drawing a salary of
Rs.30,000/ – per month. She further deposed that she was dependent upon the
deceased as well as he r husband. She proved the Ration Card, Election Card,
Matric Certificate as well as the passbook of the savings bank account of the
deceased as Ex.PW -1/9 to PW -1/12. PW -2 is the eyewitness and he deposed
that the deceased was hit by the offending vehicle (Dumper ) bearing No.
HR-63A-0270 from behind in front of NDPL Office near Plywood Factory,
Karala, Delhi -110081 on 08th October, 2008 at 04:05 PM and the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Dumper. PW -3 deposed
that the deceased w as working in his construction company as a Supervisor
since 16th April, 2004 at a salary of Rs.12,000/ – per month besides expenses
of petrol, mobile and other miscellaneous expenses. PW -3 produced the
certificate, Ex.PW -1/6. He further deposed that he had shown the salary of
employees in his Income Tax Return. He produced the Income Tax Return
for the assessment year 2009 -2010 along with the statement of account s as
Ex.PW -3/1. PW -3 in cross examination deposed that he was paying the
salary in cash against vouchers but the vouchers for 2008 were not traceable.
He further deposed that he is an Income Tax Assessee since 1998 and he can
produce the Income Tax Record for the relevant period.
4. The Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.
HR-63A-0270 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and
insured by respondent No.3. The Claims Tribunal held that PW -2, father of
the deceased , was working with the Delhi Police as Sub -Inspector and was ,
therefore, not dependent upon the deceased. The Claims Tribunal further
held that petitioner No.1, mother of the deceased , cannot be said to be
2021:DHC:77
MAC.APP. 623/2019 Page 3 of 12 dependent upon the deceased as her husband was employed with the Delhi
Police. The Claims Tribunal held that the appellants were not entitled to
compensation for loss of dependency but only to compensation for loss of
the estate in terms of the principles laid down in Keith Rowe v. Prashant
Sagar , 2011 ACJ 1734.
5. The Clai ms Tribunal held that the income of the decea sed has not
been duly proved. The appellants claimed in the claim petition that the
deceased was self employed as a Contractor earning Rs.55,000/ – to
Rs.60,000/ – per month. PW -1, mother of the deceased , deposed in the
witness box that the deceased was working as a Manager under a
Government Contracto r earning Rs.30,000/ – per month whereas PW-3
deposed that the deceased was working in a company as a Supervisor
drawing a salary of Rs.12,000/ – per month but he could not produce any
document to show the employment or the payment of salary. The Claims
Tribunal did not believe the salary certificate, Ex.PW -1/6 issued by PW -3 in
the absence of any documentary proof of employment. The Claims Tribunal,
therefore, took the minimum wages of Rs.4,131/ – per month as income of
the deceased, added 40% towards future prospects, applied the multiplier of
18 and awarded 15% as loss of estate to the appellants. The Claims Tribunal
awarded Rs.15,000/ – towards funeral expenses and Rs.4 0,000/ – towards loss
of love and affection. Total compensation awarded is Rs.2,42,382.16.
6. The claim petition was filed on 01st September, 2010 but the Claims
Tribunal awarded interest with effect from 30th October, 2013 when the
amended petition was filed.
Submissions of Appellants
7. Appellant No.1 is the mother and Class -I legal heir of the deceased
2021:DHC:77
MAC.APP. 623/2019 Page 4 of 12 and was dependent upon the deceased and , therefore, entitled to the
compensation as loss of dependency.
8. The appellants duly proved the income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/ –
per month by examining PW -3 and the Claims Tribunal erred in taking the
minimum wages instead of the income of Rs.12,000/ – per month. The
appellants are entitled to future prospects of 50% on the income of
Rs.12,000/ – per month.
9. The interest be awarded from date of institution of the claim petition
i.e. 01st September, 2010 .
Submissions of Respondent No.3
10. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just, fair and
reasonable and does not warrant any enhancement.
Findings
11. The first question arises for consideration is whether appellant No.1
(mother of the deceased) is entitled to compensation for death of her son .
Appellant No.1 is the mother of the deceased and she has no independent
source of income. She deposed that she was dependent upon the deceased as
well as on her husband .
12. This Court is of the view that the parents of the deceased are
considered in law as dependent on their children, considering that the
children are bound to support their parents in their old age , when the parents
would be unable to maintain themselves and the law imposes a responsibility
on the children to maintain their parents. Even if the parents are not
dependent on their children at the time of the accident , they will certainly be
dependent, both financially an d emotionally, upon their children at the later
stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their
2021:DHC:77
MAC.APP. 623/2019 Page 5 of 12 initial years. It would therefore be unfair as well as inequitable to deny
compensation for loss of dependency to a parent, who may not be dependent
on his /her child at the time of accident per se but would become dependent
at his/her later age.
13. Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 20 of
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 , and Maintenance and Welfare
of Pa rents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cast an obligation on the children
to maintain their parents. These legislations recognize the legal rights of
parents to be maintained by their children.
14. In Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai , (1987) 2 SCC
278, the Supreme Court noted the moral obligation of children to maintain
their parents. Relevant portion of the judgment is as under: –
“6. There can be no doubt that it is the moral obligation of
a son or a daughter to maintain his or her parents. It is n ot
desirable that even though a son or a daughter has
sufficient means, his or her parents would starve. Apart
from any law, the Indian society casts a duty on the children
of a person to maintain their parents if they are not in a
position to maintain the mselves. It is also their duty to look
after their parents when they become old and infirm.”

15. In Mahendrakumar Ramrao Gaikwad v. Gulabbai Ramrao
Gaikwad , 2001 CriLJ 2111 , the Bombay High Court referred to the ancient
scripture of Manu which recognizes the right of the aged parents to be
maintained by their children even if the children are unable to maintain
themselves. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: –
11. It is not out of place to remember the mandate of Manu
in the matter of maintenance of parents, wife and child.
Manu said, “the aged parents, a virtuous wife and an infant
child must be maintained even by committing a hundred
2021:DHC:77
MAC.APP. 623/2019 Page 6 of 12 misdeeds ” Manu does not speak of solitary duty . It is moral
duty of a person to maintain aged parents , virtuous wife and
infant child. In discharge of this pious duty, Manu went to
such an extent that he made hundred misdeeds pardonable.
During course of time, this moral duty assumed a
legal character. The need was felt to introduce an
enactment in this behalf.
xxx xxx xxx
13. Under the circumstance s, son is legally bound to
maintain his mother if it is shown that mother is unable to
maintain herself. It is not at all desirable that an earning
son, who is well placed in the society, having possessed of
sufficient means, shall allow his penniless mother to face
starvation. The Indian Society casts a moral obligation on
the children of a person to maintain their parents if they are
not in a position to maintain themselves. It is bounden duty
of a son t o look after his parents when they become old and
infirm.
xxx xxx xxx
25………..Because of his mother, he has seen this beautiful
world. Parents give each child name, places the child in a
social class and gives national and religious identity.
Parent p lugs child into society in which he or she will live
and grow. ”

16. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram , (2018) 18 SCC
130, the Supreme Court held that parents are entitled to Filial consortium as
compensation for accidental death of a child. Rele vant portion of the said
judgment is reproduced hereunder: –
“21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay
Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680 ] dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is
a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”,
“parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to
2021:DHC:77
MAC.APP. 623/2019 Page 7 of 12 consortium would include the company, care, h elp, 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: [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh,
(2013) 9 SCC 54]
xxx xxx xxx
21.3. Filial consor tium 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 t heir
child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their
love, affection, companionship and their role in the
family unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms
about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdi ctions 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 co nsortium 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 vic tims 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 award ed to children who
lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A
few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count
[Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC
OnLine Raj 3848; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita
Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435;
Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand
Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 ]. However, there was no
clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation
2021:DHC:77
MAC.APP. 623/2019 Page 8 of 12 could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.”

17. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur , SLP (C .)
No. 28548/2014 decided on 30th June, 2020 , the Supreme Court re -affirmed
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) with respect to the rights of
parents to compensation in case of accidental death of a child. Relevant
portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: –
“In Magma General Insur ance 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
relation s with the deceased spouse.
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.
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 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.
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
2021:DHC:77
MAC.APP. 623/2019 Page 9 of 12 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.”

18. In New India Assurance Company v. Somwati, (2020) 9 SCC 644 ,
the Supreme Court awarded Filial compensation in terms of principles laid
down in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd (supra) and United India
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur (supra) .
19. In Sarla Verma v. D.T.C ., (2009) 6 S CC 121, the Supreme Court held
that the mother of the deceased bachelor is entitled to compensation by
taking 50% of his income as loss of dependency on the premise that the
deceased would not contribute more than 50% to his mother after marriage.
The Supr eme Court further observed that the mother would be considered as
dependent even if the father was employed and earning. In Sarla
Verma (supra), the Supreme Court has laid down clear principles for
computation of compensation in respect of death of a paren t as well as a
spouse by applying the multiplier method and the application of those
principles have not been made subject to any condition meaning thereby that
no further evidence is required to prove the dependency in the aforesaid
cases.
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 dependent s for computation of compensation . The principles
laid down in Keith Rowe (supra) and Dinesh Adhlak v. Pri tam 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
2021:DHC:77
MAC.APP. 623/2019 Page 10 of 12 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.
21. Applying well settled principles enunciated above, this Court holds
that appellant No.1 (mother of the deceased) is entitled to the compensation
for loss of depen dency according to the multiplier method.
22. In the present case, the deceased Naveen was aged 23 years at the
time of accident . The appellant stated in the claim petition that the deceased
was working as a Contractor earning Rs.55,000/ – to Rs.60,000/ – per mo nth.
However, appellant No.1 in the witness box deposed that the deceased was
working as a Manager under a Government Contractor earning Rs.30,000/ –
per month. During evidence, the appellants produced PW -3 who deposed
that deceased was working as Superviso r since 16th April, 2004 and the last
drawn salary was Rs.12,000/ – per month. However, PW -3 could not produce
any document to prove the employment of the deceased with him. In view of
the inconsistent stands taken by the appellant in the claim petition and the
evidence, the Claims Tribunal rightly disbelieved the testimony of PW -3 and
took the minimum wages of Rs.4,131/ – per month as income of the
deceased.
23. Taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,131/ – per month, adding
40% towards future prospects, deduc ting 50% towards personal expenses
and applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency is computed as
Rs.6,24,607.2 0. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/ – towards loss
2021:DHC:77
MAC.APP. 623/2019 Page 11 of 12 of love and affection and Rs. 15,000/ – towards funeral expenses which is
upheld. The total compensation is computed as Rs.6, 80,000/ –
(Rs.6,79,607.2 0 rounded of f).
24. The claim petition was instituted on 01st September, 2010 by appellant
No.1 (mother of the deceased). On 30th October, 2013, the Claims Tribunal
directed appellant No .1 to implead the father of the deceased as a claimant
whereupon appellant No.1 filed a formal application for amendment which
was not opposed and the amendment was allowed. Since the amendment
was formal in nature, there is no justification for not awardi ng the interest
from the date of institution i.e. 01st September, 2010.
25. The appeal is allowed and the award a mount is enhanced from
Rs.2,42,382.16 to Rs. Rs.6,80,000/ – along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of institution of the ori ginal petition i.e. 01st September,
2010 till realization.
26. Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount
along with up to date interest with the Registrar General of this Court within
four weeks.
27. List for disbursement of the compensa tion amount on 18th February ,
2021.
28. Appellant No.1 shall remain present in Court before the next date of
hearing along with passbook of her savings bank account near the place of
her residence as well as PAN card and Aadhaar card. The concerned bank of
Appella nt No.1 is directed not to issue any cheque book or debit card to her
and if the same have already been issued, the bank is directed to cancel the
same and make an endorsement on her passbook to this effect. Appellant
No.1 shall produce the copy of this or der to the concerned bank, whereupon
2021:DHC:77
MAC.APP. 623/2019 Page 12 of 12 the bank shall make an endorsement on her passbook that no cheque book
and/or debit card shall be issued to Appellant No.1 without the permission of
this Court. Appellant No.1 shall produce the original passbook of her
individual savings bank account with the necessary endorsement on the next
date of hearing. However, the concerned bank shall permit appellant No.1 to
withdraw money from her savings bank account by means of a withdrawal
form.
29. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar General who shall
circulate it to all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. The Claims Tribunals
shall note that the principles relating to the loss to the estate in Keith Rowe
(supra ) and Dinesh Adhlak (supra) are not applicable to the claim of the
parents in respect of the death of their child , claim of children in respect of
death of their parents and claim of a spouse in respect of death of his/her
spouse in a motor accident.
30. Copy of this judgment be sent to Delhi Judicial Academy to sensit ize
the Claims Tribunals about the principles laid down by this Court in this
judgement .
31. The judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.

J.R. MIDHA , J.
JANUARY 8, 2021
ds/ak
2021:DHC:77