Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate v. RAMWATI ORS

Judgment

1. The appellant – IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. [“the Insurance Company”] has preferred the present appeal against an award dated 07.08.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] in MACT No. 307/09/13/11. The proceedings arose from a fatal accident which led to the death of one Mr. Vijay Pal. By the impugned award, his wife and children [hereinafter, “the claimants”] have been awarded Rs.9,29,389/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. The facts of the case, as stated in the award, are that on 02.02.2009, at about 8:30 PM, the deceased was travelling from the Nangloi Subji Mandi to his house on a bicycle, when a tractor [bearing No. UP-82K- 0558] [“the insured vehicle”] hit the deceased’s bicycle from the front, leading to the deceased falling and sustaining grievous injuries. The deceased was then taken to the Maharishi Balmiki Hospital, Pooth Khurd, but was later transferred to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, where he Signature Not Verified Signed By:BHUPENDER Signing Date:11.12.2025 17:31:41 MAC.APP. 920/2013 eventually succumbed to his injuries. 3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4, being the wife, son and two daughters of the deceased, were the claimants before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company, driver and owner of the insured vehicle [respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein] were arrayed as respondents before the Tribunal. 4. Criminal proceedings were also instituted against respondent No. 5

vide FIR No. 21/2009 under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Shahbad Dairy. After investigation, a charge sheet dated 18.04.2009 was filed in the criminal proceedings. 5. The Tribunal returned a finding of rash and negligent driving against respondent No. 5, and assessed compensation payable to the claimants, and against the Insurance Company without any recovery rights, at Rs. 9,29,389/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, under the following heads: Pecuniary Damages: Loss of dependency Funeral charges Loss of estate Loss of consortium Non- Pecuniary Damages: Loss of love, company and affection etc. Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of gratuitous services TOTAL Rs. 6,44,389/- Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 9,29,389/-

6. 7. The present appeal relates only to the quantum of compensation. I have heard Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and Mr. SN Parashar, learned counsel for the claimants. 8. In support of the appeal, Mr. Seth submits as follows: a. That the Tribunal has erroneously computed loss of Signature Not Verified Signed By:BHUPENDER Signing Date:11.12.2025 17:31:41 MAC.APP. 920/2013 dependency on the basis of an incorrect addition of future prospects at 30%, and a deduction of only 1/4th [25%] towards personal and living expenses. In fact, he submits that future prospects should be added at 25%, as laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1, and that the two major married daughters and the major son [respondent Nos. 2 to 4] ought not to have been taken as dependents. According to Mr. Seth, this would lead to deduction of 1/2 [50%] towards personal expenses. b. That the Tribunal has erroneously granted compensation for funeral charges at Rs. 25,000/-, instead of Rs. 15,000/-, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi. c. That the Tribunal has also erred in granting compensation for “loss of love, company and affection” at Rs.1,00,000/-, and for “loss of gratuitous services” at Rs. 50,000/-.

9. With regard to the computation of loss of dependency, Mr. Parashar, on the other hand, submits that the wife of the deceased [respondent No. 1 herein], who gave evidence before the Tribunal, stated that her children were dependant on the deceased, and her testimony withstood cross-examination. However, he does not dispute the reduction of future prospects from 30% to 25%. In addition, he submits that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded inadequate sums under the heads, loss of estate at Rs.10,000/- and loss of consortium at Rs.1,00,000/-. He refers me to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi, which holds that these figures are required to be revised to Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 1,60,000/-, respectively. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 [hereinafter, “Pranay Sethi”]. Signature Not Verified Signed By:BHUPENDER Signing Date:11.12.2025 17:31:41 MAC.APP. 920/2013

10. Each of the aforesaid grounds is dealt with below. A. DEDUCTION FOR PERSONAL EXPENSES

11. The determination of this issue turns on the dependency, as far as the children of the deceased are concerned. 12. The contention of the claimants before the Tribunal was that the deceased had four dependants at the time of the accident, being his wife, two daughters aged about 18 and 20 years, and son aged about 21 years. 13. Respondent No. 1, i.e. wife of deceased examined herself as PW-1, and in her affidavit of evidence, she stated as follows: “2. ……At the time of accident, the age of my husband was 43 years and was vegetable vendor and was earning Rs 10,000/-p.m., out of which he used to give me Rs 9000/-p.m. for household expenses and I was maintaining the entire house. My husband was hale and hearty and he was teetotaler. If my husband had not died in the said accident, he must have earned Rs 20,000/- p.m. in future as his income was increasing every year and also due to inflation and rise in price index every year. I am a household woman. The original reciept issued by doctors of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi regarding admission of my husband and his death is EX.PW1/1. The original dead body reciept of my husband is EX.PWl/2 and original death certificate is EX.PWl/3. 3. That my husband left behind myself Ramwati (widow) aged 40 years, Satbir ( son )aged 21 years ,Raj kali ( daughter) aged 20 yrs and Kusum (daughter ) aged 18 years, as dependents/legal heirs. My father-in-law and mother-in-law are pre-deceased. We all were fully dependent upon the income of my husband for day-to-day expenses. The photocopy of our ration card is EX PW1/4.”2

14. Respondent No. 1 [PW-1] reiterated in her examination in chief that she and her three children were the only dependents left behind by the deceased. She was also cross-examined by learned counsel for the driver and owner of the insured vehicle, where she stated that her son is unmarried, whereas both her daughters are married, but residing with her Signature Not Verified Signed By:BHUPENDER Signing Date:11.12.2025 17:31:41 MAC.APP. 920/2013 due to strained matrimonial relations. She further stated that all her children are unemployed and dependents. 15. After considering the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal held as follows: “13. As per the petition, the deceased was married and he left behind his widow, one major son and two major married daughters of deceased. In the normal course, the major son and major/married daughters cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased but in this case the married daughters are having disputes with their inlaws and are residing in their parental house, further the major son is unemployed and also financially dependent upon his parents. Hence there were four dependents upon the deceased at the time of his death.”

16. The status of married daughters as dependents has already been settled by this Court in Ram Charan & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.3, and more recently in Jagdish & Ors. v. Om Pal Singh & Ors.4, wherein this Court has held that married daughters may also be entitled for compensation under the head of “loss of dependency”. The position of a major son is equally clear. The Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender5 held that even major married and earning sons of the deceased, as legal representatives, have the right to claim compensation, even if they were not fully dependent on the deceased. In Seema Rani & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.6 the Supreme Court has further clarified as follows: “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellants. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on the dependents of the deceased. This Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender & Ors., had expounded that major married and earning sons 2 Emphasis supplied. 3 MAC.APP. 433/2013; decided on 18.10.2022. 4 MAC.APP. 279/2019; decided on 10.12.2024. 5 (2020) 11 SCC 356. 6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 283. Signature Not Verified Signed By:BHUPENDER Signing Date:11.12.2025 17:31:41 MAC.APP. 920/2013 of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation, and the Tribunal must consider the application, irrespective of whether the representatives are fully dependent on the deceased or not. The Court went on to conclude that since the sons, in that case, were earning merely Rs.1,50,000/- per annum, they were largely dependent on the earnings of the deceased and were staying with her.

10. Adverting to the facts at hand, on a perusal of the statement of Shashi Kumar, the son of the deceased (Appellant No.2 herein), annexed as Annexure P6, was working at a petrol pump, while the other son was involved in temporary employment opportunities only. Both of them were residing with the deceased. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that they were self-sufficient or independent of the deceased. Similarly, applying the exposition in Birender (Supra), there is no reason to exclude a married daughter from compensation. Therefore, in view of this, the High Court erred in excluding these dependants.”

17. In view of the respondent No. 1’s testimony remaining unshaken in cross-examination, and having regard to the aforesaid judgments, I am of the view that the Tribunal’s finding on the aspect of number of dependents does not warrant interference in appeal. B. FUTURE PROSPECTS

18. As far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, it is the undisputed position that it needs to be reduced from 30% to 25% in view of the settled position as per Pranay Sethi7. C. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY

19. The computation on account of loss of dependency is, therefore, modified to the following extent: S.No. Heads

1. Monthly income of the deceased [A] 2. Future prospects [B] 3. Monthly income of the deceased Amount Rs. 3,934/- 25% Rs. 4,917.50/- (including future prospects) 7 Paragraph 59.4. Signature Not Verified Signed By:BHUPENDER Signing Date:11.12.2025 17:31:41 MAC.APP. 920/2013 [A+B = C]

4. Personal expenses [D] 5. Monthly loss of dependency 25% Rs.3,688/- (Approx) [C – D = E]

6. Annual loss of dependency [E x 12 = F] Rs. 44,256/- 7. Multiplier [G] 14 Rs. 6,19,584/- Total loss of dependency [F x G]

20. Accordingly, the amount awarded towards loss of dependency is reduced from Rs. 6,44,389/- to Rs. 6,19,584/- D. FUNERAL CHARGES AND LOSS OF ESTATE

21. In light of the decision in Pranay Sethi, which prescribes Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate8, the award is revised. The compensation under these heads is accordingly fixed at Rs.15,000/- each, in place of the earlier amounts of Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate. E. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

22. In Pranay Sethi9, the Supreme Court fixed Rs. 40,000/- as the amount payable for loss of consortium. Moreover, the decisions in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Ors.10 and United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors.11 clarify that consortium is to be awarded under three separate categories: loss of spousal consortium, loss of parental consortium, and loss of filial consortium to the spouse, children, and parents of the deceased, respectively. Further, the Supreme