01Facts
On 16 February 2022, Lukman, aged 21, was struck and fatally injured by a school bus while standing beside a motorcycle stopped at the roadside
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2, 15His parents, brother and sister sought compensation.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.14,37,800, assessing Lukman’s monthly income at Rs.9,000 and awarding Rs.44,000 for loss of consortium; it allocated compensation to the parents but not the siblings
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5–6The claimants appealed, seeking reassessment of income by reference to Haryana’s minimum wage and consortium for each claimant
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–902Issues
i.1. Whether the deceased’s income should be assessed using the applicable minimum wage for an unskilled worker in District Nuh, rather than the Tribunal’s estimate of Rs.9,000 per month
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8, 12ii.2. Whether each claimant, including the deceased’s siblings, was entitled to compensation for loss of consortium
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 9, 13–1403Law Applied
Where documentary evidence of a deceased person’s income is unavailable, the applicable State minimum wage for an unskilled worker in the relevant district on the date of the accident is to be considered when assessing income
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 12In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, the Supreme Court recognised spousal, parental and filial consortium, including a parent’s entitlement to filial consortium on the death of a child
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 14The judgment also applied the compensation-assessment factors set out in its calculation, including future prospects, deduction for personal expenses, multiplier, and conventional sums for loss of estate and funeral expenses
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 1504Reasoning
The Tribunal had assessed income at Rs.9,000 per month without documentary support. Since the applicable minimum wage in District Nuh on the accident date was Rs.10,098.88, the Court rounded it to Rs.10,099 and recalculated dependency using 40% future prospects, a one-third deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 18
pp. 4–5 · pp. 6–7 · ¶ 12, 15Applying Magma General Insurance, the Court held that consortium was available to all the claimants and included Rs.44,000 for each of the four claimants
pp. 5–7 · ¶ 13–1505Holding
The appeal was allowed and the award modified. The Court reassessed total compensation at Rs.22,44,962, an enhancement of Rs.8,07,162 over the Tribunal’s award
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 15The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with the Tribunal within two months.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 16–18Claimants Nos. 3 and 4 were each to receive Rs.44,000; claimant No. 3’s share was to be kept in a fixed deposit until attaining majority. The balance was to be disbursed to the parents as apportioned by the Tribunal
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 16–18Original Court PDF
Fateena And OthersvsAhmed Hasan And Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
