Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
( 2025:HHC:25372 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
FAO No. 499 of 2017.
Decided on : 28
th July, 2025.
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. .... Appellant.
Versus Deepak Kumar & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.
Balwant
Singh
Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Rajat Awasthi, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant as the insurer of vehicle No. HP-34D-1232, which had met with an accident on 25.07.2014 near Sarwari Park, District Kullu, HP. 2. An occupant of the vehicle namely Prem Chand had lost his life in above stated accident. 3. The claim was preferred by a son and two married daughters of deceased Prem Chand by filing Claim Petition 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 ( 2025:HHC:25372 ) No. 7 of 2016 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. The Insurer has assailed the Award dated 21.08.2017 passed by learned Tribunal, whereby the claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs.21,01,972/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till the deposit of the awarded amount, by fastening the liability to satisfy the award on the insurer/appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the insurer/appellant has very fairly restricted his challenge to the impugned award only on the ground that the married daughters of the deceased could not be considered as dependents of the deceased and, thus, the deduction of amount on account of personal expenses of the deceased at the rate of 1/3rd from the monthly income of the deceased was neither justified nor proper. According to learned counsel for insurer, the deduction should have been at the rate of ½ from the monthly income of the deceased. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 22265 and 22266 of 2018, titled Deep Shikha & Anr. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
3 ( 2025:HHC:25372 ) 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance on another judgment dated 22.05.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7199 of 2025 titled as Jitender Kumar & Anr. vs. Sanjay Prasad & Ors., to assert that all the legal representatives, even if not dependent on the deceased, are entitled to receive compensation as his legal representatives. 7. The issue herein is not that the legal representatives are not entitled for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The question is whether those legal representatives, who are proved to be not dependents on the deceased, would still be considered for calculation of compensation more particularly in terms of Constitutional Bench judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680? 8. Coming to the facts of the case in hand, it has been admitted by the claimant Deepak Kumar in his cross- examination that both of his sisters i.e. other two claimants, were married and living in their matrimonial homes. Noticeably, there is no whisper from the claimants that despite being married daughters of deceased, both or either of them was still dependent on the deceased for one or the other reason. That being so, the evidence on record clearly
4 ( 2025:HHC:25372 ) suggests only one hypothesis that the married daughters of the deceased, after marriage, were not dependent on him. 9. The judgments relied upon by both the sides are not in conflict with each other as far as the issue involved in the instant case is concerned. In the case of Jitender Kumar (supra), though it has been held that the legal representatives of deceased are entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, however, in that case also deduction on account of personal expenses has been ordered to be made @50% i.e. ½ of the income of the deceased, notwithstanding the plurality in number of legal representatives. 10. In FAO No. 423 of 2019, titled as IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kamla Devi & Ors., decided on 10.04.2025, this Court has already dealt with this issue as under:- “13. Sh. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the insurer/ appellant would submit that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is excessive as against the settled principles of law. According to him, learned Tribunal has erred in considering the gross salary of deceased as his income, whereas, such income was subject to deduction on account of payment of income tax. He would further submit that the multiplier has been wrongly applied on uniform basis, which after taking into
5 ( 2025:HHC:25372 ) consideration, the fact that the deceased was to retire in two years, had to be a split multiplier i.e. for the period upto retirement on the full monthly income and thereafter for remainder of the period on half of the income earned by the deceased as monthly salary. He would further submit that the wife of the deceased had shown herself to be the only dependent and thus, the personal expenses of the deceased should have been deducted @ 50%. He would also submit that the compensation under the heads of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate have to be strictly in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that all the legal representatives of deceased were dependent upon him and for such reason, 1/5th of the monthly income of deceased was liable to be deducted towards personal expenses. He further submitted that learned Tribunal has not awarded the loss of consortium to each of the dependents of the deceased. According to him, the compensation under the head of loss of estate also was to be assessed at Rs.15,000/-. He also claimed enhancement at the rate of 10% after every three years on the compensation awarded under the conventional heads. It has further been pointed out that the learned Tribunal has
6 ( 2025:HHC:25372 ) not awarded anything towards the loss on account of future prospects. 15. Learned Tribunal has placed reliance on the salary certificate of the deceased Ext. PW- 2/A. In the said certificate itself, a sum of Rs.500/- was shown deducted on account of income tax. In absence of any other evidence on record as to the actual amount deductible from the income of the deceased on account of income tax, a sum of Rs.500/- per month atleast was required to be deducted. The monthly income of the deceased, thus would be Rs.48,338/-. Learned Tribunal has held all the legal representatives of deceased entitled to the compensation. The award to this effect is in consonance with the provisions of Section 166 (1) (c) and first proviso to that Section which reads as under: “166 (1) (c) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made, where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives
7 ( 2025:HHC:25372 ) who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.” 16. In the instant case, the petition nowhere mentioned that the claimant had filed the petition for all the legal representatives of the deceased. The other legal representatives of deceased were not impleaded as respondents also. However, since the mandate of aforesaid provision is to make application on behalf of or for all legal representatives, therefore, even in absence of procedural formalities the claim petition shall be deemed to be filed on behalf of all the legal representatives. 17. In Manjuri Bera (Smt.) vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another (2007) 10 SCC 643, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if there was no dependence, there is a loss to the estate and a person who is legal representative but not dependent can yet be beneficiary of the estate. In this view of the matter, the award of compensation by learned Tribunal in favour of all the legal representatives of the deceased needs no interference except to the extent that the son of the deceased will not be entitled to the benefit of award as he was none other than the owner-cum-rider of the motor cycle involved in the accident and for such reason he cannot be held entitled to compensation. 18. In Pranay Sethi (supra), it has been held that for determination of multiplicand, the
8 ( 2025:HHC:25372 ) deduction for personal and living expenses, the Tribunal and Courts shall be governed by paras 32 and 33 of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. In Sarla Verma (supra), it was held that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/4th where the number of dependents of deceased family members is 4 to 6 and 1/5th where the number of dependents family members exceed 6. Thus, the ratio prescribed for deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased has been related to the number of dependent family members. Thus, keeping the facts of the instant case in view, it can be inferred that except for the married daughters and son of deceased, all other members of his family i.e. the wife and mother were dependent on him. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the wife and mother of the deceased
were
having
their
own independent source of income. Since, the daughters were married, in ordinary course their dependence would be on their respective spouses and the son has already been held not entitled for compensation. Accordingly, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, in this case, would be 1/3rd
9 ( 2025:HHC:25372 ) instead of 1/4th as made by learned Tribunal. After such deduction, the monthly dependency
can
assessed
at Rs.32,226/-.” “Emphasis added” 11. Since, in Pranay Sethi (supra) mandates the deduction on account of personal expenses based on the number of dependents, in the facts of instant case there being only one dependent i.e. son of the deceased, the deduction had to be made @ 50% instead of 1/3rd of the monthly income of the deceased, as has been done by the learned Tribunal. By recalculation, on the above principle, the amount of total dependency will be as under:- Income of the deceased Rs.23,432/- per month Addition @15% on monthly income on account of future prospects Rs. 3,514/- Total monthly income RS.26,946/- Deduction @50% on account of personal expenses Rs.13,473/- Loss of monthly dependency Rs.13,473/- Loss of annual dependency Rs.13,473/-X12=Rs. 1,61,676/- Loss of total dependency Rs.1,61,676/-X11= Rs.17,78,436/- 12. On recalculation of the loss of dependency, the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal has to be reduced. However, in light of principle laid down by
10 ( 2025:HHC:25372 ) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjana Prakash and Ors. vs. Divisional Manager and Another, (2011)14 SCC 639, this Court is empowered to look into other heads under which inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and to enhance the same, in case it is not in tune with mandate of law. 13. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- only on account of loss of consortium. Noticeably, in light of the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, and followed in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, all the claimants will be entitled to compensation on account of loss of consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each. In addition, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. As per Pranay Sethi the claimants shall also be entitled to enhancement at the rate of 10% after every three years on the compensation granted under the conventional heads and in this manner, the claimants shall be entitled to enhancement of Rs.30,000/-. 14. Thus, the claimants on re-calculation of all the components shall be entitled to the compensation as under: -
11 ( 2025:HHC:25372 ) 1. Loss of dependency Rs.13,473/- x 12 x 11=Rs.17,78,436/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,20,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 4 Funeral Charges Rs.15,000/- 5. Enhancement @10% after every three years on the compensation
granted under the conventional heads. Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.19,58,436/- (Rs. Nineteen Lakhs, fifty eight thousand and four hundred thirty six only) 15. The claimants shall also be entitled to the interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 16. In result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 21st August, 2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kullu in Claim Petition No. 7 of 2016 is modified to the extent as detailed hereinabove. 17. The appeal shall stand disposed of accordingly so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 18. Records be sent back forthwith.
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge 28th July, 2025.
(jai)