P&H HC Raises Compensation For Dairy Worker’s Family To Rs 26.49 Lakh, Awards Rs 40,000 Consortium Each To Five Claimants

In brief

The question

Whether the deceased’s monthly income should be assessed above the Tribunal’s figure of ₹8,000, in light of the claimants’ evidence that he earned ₹19,500 per month

The court held

The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal’s award modified.

It also directed

The court assessed total compensation at ₹26,49,200, including ₹2,00,000 for loss of consortium, and directed payment of the enhanced amount with interest at 7% per annum from the date the claim petition was filed until realization.

The driver, owner and insurer were held jointly and severally liable to deposit the amount within two months; the Tribunal was directed to disburse it in accordance with its apportionment

01Facts

Balraj died from injuries sustained in a 11 September 2016 motor-vehicle accident.

¶ 2

His widow, minor children and parents sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶ 2

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed his monthly income at ₹8,000, awarded ₹16,82,800 with interest at 7% per annum, and granted ₹40,000 for loss of consortium.

¶ 5–8

The claimants appealed, seeking enhancement on the basis of a higher income and consortium for all claimants

¶ 5–8

02Issues

i.Whether the deceased’s monthly income should be assessed above the Tribunal’s figure of ₹8,000, in light of the claimants’ evidence that he earned ₹19,500 per month

¶ 7–10

ii.Whether each claimant was entitled to compensation for loss of consortium

¶ 7, 11–12

03Law Applied

Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation for death in a motor accident is assessed by determining the deceased’s income and applying the relevant deductions, future-prospects addition and multiplier.

¶ 10–11

Where documentary evidence of income is absent, the court may assess income by reference to applicable minimum wages and, where appropriate, reasonable guesswork.

¶ 10–11

In Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, 2018 (4) RCR (Civil) 333, the Supreme Court recognised spousal, parental and filial consortium and the entitlement of family members to compensation under that head

¶ 10–11

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 279 Section 337

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

04Reasoning

The court declined to accept the asserted monthly income of ₹19,500 because the claimants produced no documentary proof of salary and no evidence establishing that PW-3 owned the dairy; PW-3’s cross-examination also did not state the deceased’s monthly income.

¶ 10

Considering the deceased’s dairy work, the court assessed his income at ₹12,000 per month by reasonable guesswork.

¶ 10

It then applied a 40% addition for future prospects, a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 16.

¶ 13

Applying Magma General Insurance, it held that all five claimants—the widow, two children and parents—were entitled to consortium of ₹40,000 each

¶ 10–13

05Holding

The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal’s award modified.

¶ 13–17

The driver, owner and insurer were held jointly and severally liable to deposit the amount within two months; the Tribunal was directed to disburse it in accordance with its apportionment

¶ 13–17

LawLens.Punjab and Haryana High Court

Original Court PDF