# Ruhi Arora & Anr v. Smt. Monika & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 754
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-10
- **Case number:** First Appeal from Order No. 301 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ruhi-arora-anr-v-smt-monika-ors-50572
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law-Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Section
173-Challenge to-award of compensation-
unmarried
sister
and
father
of
the
deceased filed seeking to modify the
award - The appellant No. 1(unmarried
sister)
has
not
been
awarded
any
compensation-The
appellant
No.
2
(father) has been awarded 10% of the
compensation
computed
i.e.
Rs.5,23,032.80 or Rs.5,28,033/-. The wife
and minor children of the deceased have
been awarded 60%, 15% and 15% of the
compensation along with 6% interest per
annum-Tribunal manifestly erred in law in
denying
the
compensation
to
the
appellant No. 1 (sister of the deceased) on
the ground that she could not be treated
to be dependent upon her deceased
brother during the life time of her father
(Appellant No. 2)-She was also liable to be
awarded compensation to the extent of
15% of the amount of compensation
awarded- Moreso, the Tribunal wrongly
apportioned
10%
amount
for
the
appellant No. 2 whereas he ought to have
been awarded 20% as he lost his only
son-As per Apex Court decision in Magna
General Insurance Case and the decision
in Pranay Sethi Case, the surviving
spouse (wife of the deceased) is entitled
for spousal consortium to the extent of
40,000/- instead of Rs. 2,500/- awardedLikewise the funeral expenses are liable to
be increased to Rs. 15,000/- from Rs.
2,500/- awarded - The appellants herein
8 All. Ruhi Arora & Anr. Vs. Smt. Monika & Ors.
755
being the unmarried sister and father of
the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.
40,000/- each on account of loss of filial
consortium. (Para 1 to 26)

The Apex Court held that 'consortium' is a
compendious term which encompasses
'spousal
consortium',
'parental
consortium' and '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
relations
with
the
deceased
spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as
rights pertaining to the relationship of a
husband-wife which allows compensation
to the surviving spouse for loss of
'company, society, co-operation, affection,
and aid of the other in every conjugal
relation'. 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,
affection,
companionship and their role in the family
unit.(Para 20)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
communicated
to
the
appellant.
The
absence of the appellant /his counsel when
the matter was taken up for hearing before
the learned Railway Claims Tribunal at
Lucknow was due to bonafide reasons and
for circumstances beyond his control. The
appellant upon getting knowledge of the
order dismissing the claim petition for non
prosecution immediately filed a restoration
application without further delay. The
application for delay condonation discloses
that the cause for delay was genuine,
bonafide and the delay was not intentional.
This Court also finds that the appellant was
always diligent in the prosecution of his
claim. Moreover, when the substantive
rights of the parties are engaged before the
courts, the endeavour of the courts is
always to serve substantive justice and not
shut the doors of justice to the claimants on
technicalities.

11. In this wake, the application for
delay
condonation
is
liable
to
be
entertained and is allowed. The restoration
application is liable to be allowed and is
allowed.

12. The judgement and order dated
09.02.2000 as well as 21.01.2002 passed by
the learned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow is liable to be
set aside and is set aside.

13. The matter is remitted to the
learned tribunal for decision on merits.

14. The instant first appeal from order
is allowed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 754
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2023

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 301 of 2020

Ruhi Arora & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Monika & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Santosh Tripathi, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, Sri
Ashok
Kumar Bais, Sri Ramesh Chandra
Srivastava, Sri Dev Dutt Arora(In-Person), Sri
M.D. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.D. Ojha

Civil Law-Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Section
173-Challenge to-award of compensation-
unmarried
sister
and
father
of
the
deceased filed seeking to modify the
award - The appellant No. 1(unmarried
sister)
has
not
been
awarded
any
compensation-The
appellant
No.
2
(father) has been awarded 10% of the
compensation
computed
i.e.
Rs.5,23,032.80 or Rs.5,28,033/-. The wife
and minor children of the deceased have
been awarded 60%, 15% and 15% of the
compensation along with 6% interest per
annum-Tribunal manifestly erred in law in
denying
the
compensation
to
the
appellant No. 1 (sister of the deceased) on
the ground that she could not be treated
to be dependent upon her deceased
brother during the life time of her father
(Appellant No. 2)-She was also liable to be
awarded compensation to the extent of
15% of the amount of compensation
awarded- Moreso, the Tribunal wrongly
apportioned
10%
amount
for
the
appellant No. 2 whereas he ought to have
been awarded 20% as he lost his only
son-As per Apex Court decision in Magna
General Insurance Case and the decision
in Pranay Sethi Case, the surviving
spouse (wife of the deceased) is entitled
for spousal consortium to the extent of
40,000/- instead of Rs. 2,500/- awardedLikewise the funeral expenses are liable to
be increased to Rs. 15,000/- from Rs.
2,500/- awarded - The appellants herein
8 All. Ruhi Arora & Anr. Vs. Smt. Monika & Ors.
755
being the unmarried sister and father of
the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.
40,000/- each on account of loss of filial
consortium. (Para 1 to 26)

The Apex Court held that 'consortium' is a
compendious term which encompasses
'spousal
consortium',
'parental
consortium' and '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
relations
with
the
deceased
spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as
rights pertaining to the relationship of a
husband-wife which allows compensation
to the surviving spouse for loss of
'company, society, co-operation, affection,
and aid of the other in every conjugal
relation'. 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,
affection,
companionship and their role in the family
unit.(Para 20)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs DTC & anr. (2009) 6
SCC 121

2. Reshma Kumari & ors. Vs Madan Mohan &
anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65

3. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi (2017)
16 SCC 680

4. Santosh Devi Vs Mahaveer Singh (2018) 9
SCC 146

5. Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi Vs New India
Assr. Co. Ltd (2018) 15 SCC 649

6. Magma Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram @
Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Dev Dutt Arora
(appellant No. 2) In-person for the
appellants and Shri S. D. Ojha, learned
counsel for the claimant-respondent Nos. 1
to 3. No one appeared for respondent Nos.
4 & 5 despite service.

2. This First Appeal From Order dated
17.8.2013, at the instance of the unmarried
sister and father of the deceased, has been
filed seeking to modify the judgment/award
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Saharanpur rendered in MACP No. 149 of
2011 (Smt. Monika Arora and others versus
Vishnu Kumar Meena and others) by
making re-apportionment of the share of
the
awarded
compensation
of
Rs.52,80,328/- and grant appropriate share
to appellant No. 1 (unmarried sister of the
deceased) and to enhance the share of the
appellant No. 2 from 10% of the award to
20% by making adjustment from the 60%
share of claimant respondent No. 1-Smt.
Monika Arora (widow of the deceased).

3. The appellant No. 2, In-person,
submits that his only son Vikalp Arora died
in a road accident which took place on
22.4.2011 at 3:30 PM near Chachura Nahar
Thana Kakor District Gautam Budh Nagar
on the Bulandshahr Noida Road. Vikalp
was traveling in a Alto Car bearing
registration No. UP-21-T-7739 along with
his friends Ankit and Surjeet when a Truck
bearing registration No. RJ-11-GA-2075
overturned over the Alto car crushing the
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
occupant Vikalp Arora resulting in his
death on the spot. Vikalp Arora was 33
years of age and employed as a Territory
Sales Officer with Hindustan Unilever Ltd.,
and earning approx Rs.70,000/- per month.
He was survived by his wife Monika Arora,
a minor daughter Ananya Arora and minor
son Luv Arora besides the appellants
herein. A claim petition under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, being Claim
Petition No. 149 of 2011 was filed before
the MACT, Saharanpur by the claimantrespondent Nos. 1 to 3 along with the
appellants herein claiming a compensation
of Rs.1,57,10,000/- besides Rs.50,000/-
immediately under Section 140 of the
Motor Vehicles Act and 12% interest per
annum from the date of accident upto the
date of actual payment under Section 171
of the Act. The claims Tribunal under the
impugned award dated 17.8.2013 awarded
a sum of Rs.52,80,328/- as compensation
with 6% simple interest from the date of
institution of the claim petition. The claims
Tribunal did not award any compensation
to the appellant No. 1 herein (unmarried
sister) on the ground that she could not be
treated to be dependent upon the deceased
brother during the life time of the father
(appellant No. 2 herein). The Tribunal,
however, apportioned 10% of the amount
awarded as compensation in favour of the
appellant No. 2 (father of deceased). 60%
of the award was apportioned in favour of
the wife of the deceased (claimant
respondent No. 1 herein) while the
dependent minor children of the deceased
(claimant respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein)
were apportioned 15% each of the
compensation awarded.

4. The wife of the deceased i.e.
Monika Arora along with her two minor
children i.e. the claimant-respondent Nos. 1
to 3 herein assailed the award dated
17.8.2013 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Saharanpur before this
Court by means of FAFO (D) No. 290 of
2014. The appeal filed by the wife and
minor children of the deceased (i.e. the
claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein)
came to be decided in terms of a settlement
arrived at before the National Lok Adalat
held before this Court vide order dated
3.10.2021 wherein the Insurance Company
(ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd.) and the claimants amicably settled the
appeal for a full and final consideration of
Rs.26,25,000/- over and above the amount
that had already been received by the
claimants (if any). The settlement also
contained a stipulation that nothing beyond
the above amount settled would be payable
to the claimants by the Insurance Company
(ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd.).

5. Shri S. D. Ojha, learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the
settlement arrived at on 3.10.2021 has
already been given effect to and the
claimants have received the amount of the
compensation in the same proportion as has
been awarded by the Tribunal under the
impugned award. The appellant No. 2 Dev
Dutt Arora has been released 10% of the
awarded amount i.e. Rs.2,62,500/-.

6. This Court in the aforesaid
backdrop is required to decide the present
appeal.

7. Shri Dev Dutt Arora, the appellant
No. 2, who has appeared in person has
made the following submissions:-

•
the
Claims
Tribunal
manifestly erred in law in
denying the compensation
to the appellant No. 1
8 All. Ruhi Arora & Anr. Vs. Smt. Monika & Ors.
757
(sister of the deceased) on
the ground that she could
not
be
treated
to
be
dependent
upon
her
deceased brother during the
life time of her father
(Appellant No. 2). She was
also liable to be awarded
compensation to the extent
of 15% of the amount of
compensation awarded.
•
the
Claims
Tribunal
wrongly apportioned 10%
amount for the appellant
No. 2 whereas he ought to
have been awarded 20% as
he lost his only son.
•
the compensation amount
is not just and proper and is
not commensurate with the
loss
suffered
by
the
claimants/appellants on the
accidental death of Vikalp
Aora, the only brother/son
of the appellant Nos. 1 & 2.
•
refusing compensation to
the appellant No. 1 is based
on no evidence and the
appellant No. 1 cannot be
treated to be financially
dependent upon her father
(appellant No. 2) specially
when the appellant No. 2
himself
was
dependent
upon the income of his
deceased son Vikalp Arora.

8. It is accordingly prayed that the
appeal is liable to be allowed and the award
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is
liable to be modified accordingly as prayed.

9. Shri S. D. Ojha, learned counsel for
claimant/respondent Nos. 1 to 3, however,
submits that the award of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Saharanpur is
just and proper and needs no interference
by this Court. The Tribunal has found that
the appellant No. 1, Ruhi Arora was
dependent upon her father (appellant No. 2)
who was running a general merchant shop.
He, thus, submits that the appeal warrants
rejection.

10. I have heard the respective parties
and have perused the record.

11. So far as the denial of the
compensation consequent to the death of
Vikalp Arora to the appellant No. 1, Juhi
Arora (unmarried sister) on the ground that
she could not be held to be dependent upon
the deceased during the life time of her
father (appellant) appears to be justified in
the absence of any evidence that the
deceased had been contributing towards the
fee etc., for the education of the appellant
No. 1. No evidence was led before the
Claims Tribunal in this regard and no
evidence to this effect has been led before
this Court. It has come in evidence that the
appellant No. 2 had been running his
Kirana shop which fact has not been
denied. In such view of the matter,the Court
is not inclined to interfere in the finding of
the Tribunal in this regard.

12. The Apex Court in the case of
Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi
Transport
Corporation
&
another,
reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121, has held that
where the deceased was married the
deduction towards personal and living
expenses should be 1/3rd if the number of
dependent family members is two to three;
1/4th if the number of dependent family
member is four to six; and 1/5th if the
number of dependent family members
exceeds six. If the deceased was a bachelor
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and the claim was filed by the parents, the
deductions would normally be 50% as
personal and living expenses of the bachelor.
Subject to the evidence to the contrary the
father was likely to have his own income and
would not be considered to be a dependent.
Hence, the mother alone will be considered to
be a dependent. In the absence of any
evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters
of the deceased bachelor would not be
considered to be dependents because they
would usually either be independent and
earning, or married, or dependent on the
father.

13. The above view taken in the case of
Sarla Verma (supra) has been upheld by a
three Judges Bench in Reshma Kumari and
others versus Madan Mohan and another
reported in 2013 (9) SCC 65 as also by a
subsequent constitutional Bench in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd., versus Pranay
Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680.

14. Now, coming to the quantum of the
compensation determined by the Claims
Tribunal under the impugned award and the
apportionment of the same in favour of the
appellant No. 2 (father of the deceased) the
Court finds that the Tribunal has followed the
principles for assessment of compensation in
case of death as evolved by judicial dicta i.e.
Sarla Verma (supra) in particular and has
arrived at just compensation by applying the
correct multiplier and making deductions for
personal and living expenses following the
standards prescribed in Para 30, 31 & 32 of the
decision in the case of Sarla Verma (supra).
This Court finds that the Tribunal proceeded to
compute the compensation payable to the
claimants as under:-

i)
Income
Rs. 4,19,562/- p.a.
ii)
Deduction
Rs.1,39,854/-
towards
personal
expenses
(1/3)
iii)
Multiplican
d
and
bonus
Rs.2,79,708/-
+
Rs.50,000/-
=Rs.3,29,708/-
= (Rs.4,19,562 -
Rs.1,39,854
+
Rs.50,000)
iv)
Loss
of
dependency
Rs.3,29,708 x 16 =
Rs.52,75,708/-
v)
Funeral
expenses
Rs.2,500/-
vi)
Loss
of
spousal
consortium
Rs.2,500/-

Total
compensati
on
Rs.52,80,328/-

15. The Claims Tribunal thus
proceeded
to
award
a
sum
of
Rs.52,80,328/- to the claimants. The
appellant No. 1 has not been awarded any
compensation. The appellant No. 2 has
been awarded 10% of the compensation
computed
i.e.
Rs.5,23,032.80
or
Rs.5,28,033/-. The wife and minor children
of the deceased have been awarded 60%,
15% and 15% of the compensation along
with 6% interest per annum.

16. A perusal of the impugned award
of the Claims Tribunal reflects that a sum
of Rs. 2,500/- has been awarded towards
loss of spousal consortium and Rs.2500/-
towards funeral expenses.

17. In National Insurance Company Ltd.
versus Pranay Sethi reported in (2017)
SCC 680 the Constitution Bench of the
8 All. Ruhi Arora & Anr. Vs. Smt. Monika & Ors.
759
Apex Court held that the conventional and
traditional heads (i.e. loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses) cannot be
determined on percentage basis because
that would not be an acceptable criterion.
Unlike determination of income, the said
heads
have
to
be
quantified.
Any
quantification must have a reasonable
foundation. There can be no dispute over
the fact that price index, fall in bank
interest, escalation of rates in many of field
have to be noticed. The Court cannot
remain oblivious to the same. There has
been a thumb rule in this aspect.
Otherwise there will be extreme difficulty
in determination of the same and unless
the thumb rule is applied there will be
immense variation lacking any kind of
consistency as a consequence of which
the orders of the Courts and Tribunals are
likely to be unguided. Therefore, the
reasonable figures on the conventional
heads namely, loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses should
be 15,000/- Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-
respectively. The principle of revisiting
the said heads is an acceptable principle.
But the revisit should not be fact centric
or quantum-centric. The Apex Court
observed that it would be condign that the
amounts that has quantified as above
should be enhanced on percentage basis
in every three years and the enhancement
should be at the rate of 10% in a spam of
three
years
which
will
bring
in
consistency in respect of those heads.

18. In Santosh Devi v. Mahaveer
Singh [(2018) 9 SCC 146] a Three-Judge
Bench
of
the
Apex
Court
granted
compensation on conventional heads, in
terms of the figures standardized by the
Constitution Bench in the year 2017, in
Pranay Sethi, (supra) to the wife and
children of one Puran Chand, who died in a
motor
accident,
which
occurred
on
30.12.1992.

19. In Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi v.
New India Assurance Company Limited
[(2018) 15 SCC 649] the Apex Court
granted the figures on conventional heads
standardised by the Constitution Bench in
the year 2017, in Pranay Sethi, i.e.,
Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate; Rs.40,000/-
towards
loss
of
consortium;
and
Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses to the
parents [appellants before the Apex Court],
who lost their only daughter in a motor
accident which occurred on 16.08.1998. In
the said decision, Rs.40,000/- granted in
Pranay Sethi towards loss of consortium
was granted to the appellants, who are the
parents of the deceased, towards loss of
love and affection. Paragraphs 1 and 14 of
the said decision read thus;

"1. Fate can be cruel. This is a tragic
case where the only daughter of a lawyer
husband and a doctor wife, who got
married early and unfortunately became a
widow also at a young age, died in a
vehicular accident, which took place on
16.8.1998. The claim of the parents
(appellants herein) in respect of this
unfortunate demise forms the subject
matter of the present appeal.

xxx xxx xxx
14. Now coming to the last aspect, i.e., the
conventional heads, in National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16
SCC 680], it has been standardised at
Rs.15,000 for loss of estate; Rs.40,000
towards loss of consortium (in the present
case loss of love and affection) and
Rs.15,000 towards funeral expenses. The
total amount, thus, would be Rs.70,000,
which as per the said judgment is capable
of being enhanced @ 10 per cent in the
span of every three years. However, we are
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
still within the window of three years."
"underline supplied"

20. In Magma General Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram
[(2018) 18 SCC 130], after referring to the
decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Apex
Court
held
that
in
legal
parlance,
'consortium' is a compendious term which
encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental
consortium' and '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 relations
with
the
deceased
spouse.
Spousal
consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husbandwife which allows compensation to the
surviving spouse for loss of 'company,
society, co-operation, affection, and aid of
the other in every conjugal relation'.
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,
affection, companionship and their role in
the family unit.

21. In the case of Magma General
Insurance (supra), the Apex Court held that
consortium is a special prism reflecting
changing norms about the status and worth
of
actual
relationships.
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
therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium 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. The Motor Vehicles
Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
providing relief to the victims or their
families, in cases of genuine claims. In a
case where parents have 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
awarded to children who lose their parents
in motor vehicle accidents under the Motor
Vehicles Act. The Apex Court held further
that, the amount of compensation to be
awarded as consortium will be governed by
the principles of awarding compensation
under 'loss of consortium' as laid down in
Pranay Sethi (supra).

22. In the case of Magma General
Insurance (supra), the deceased was aged
24 years, who was engaged in the business
of manufacturing 'namkeen products', who
died in a motor accident which occurred on
01.12.2013. The father, brother and sister
of the deceased filed claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The
Claims Tribunal did not award any
compensation to the brother of the
deceased, as he could not be considered to
be
a
dependent.
Compensation
was
awarded to the father and unmarried sister
of the deceased, who were held to be
dependents. The father and sister of the
deceased filed appeal before the Punjab and
Haryana High Court for enhancement of
the compensation awarded by the Claims
Tribunal. The High Court found that the
8 All. Ruhi Arora & Anr. Vs. Smt. Monika & Ors.
761
Claims Tribunal used the wrong principle
for application of multiplier. The multiplier
ought to have been taken on the basis of the
age of the deceased and not that of his
father. The High Court, while re-assessing
the compensation granted a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- x 2) towards
loss of love and affection to the father and
unmarried sister of the deceased. The
insurer filed S.L.P. before the Apex Court
contending, inter alia, that the father and
sister of the deceased could not be
considered as dependents, and were not
entitled to compensation. In case of death
of bachelor, only the mother could be
considered to be a dependent. The grant of
Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of love
and affection, and Rs.25,000/- towards
funeral expenses is erroneous. It was
contended that only Rs.30,000/- could have
been awarded as per the judgment in Pranay
Sethi (supra). [i.e., loss of estate - Rs.15,000/-
and funeral expenses - Rs.15,000/-] The Apex
Court held that, considering that the deceased
was living in a village, where he was residing
with his aged father, who was about 65 years
old, and an unmarried sister, the High Court
correctly considered them to be dependents
of the deceased, and made a deduction of 1/3
rd towards personal expenses of the deceased.
[Para.16 @ page 135 of SCC] The Apex
Court found that the deceased was a bachelor,
whose mother had pre-deceased him. The
father of the deceased was about 65 years old
and his sister was unmarried. The deceased
was contributing a part of his meager income
to the family for their sustenance and
survival. Therefore, the Apex Court held that
the father and unmarried sister of the
deceased would be entitled to compensation
under his dependents. [Para.18 @ page 136
of SCC] Dealing with the contention of the
insurer that the High Court had wrongly
awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love
and affection, and Rs.25,000/- towards
funeral expenses, the Apex Court, after
quoting Para 52 of the decision in Pranay
Sethi (supra), decreased the compensation
under the head funeral expenses from
Rs.25,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. However, the
amount awarded under the head loss of love
and
affection
was
maintained.
After
explaining the concept of spousal consortium,
parental consortium and filial consortium, the
Apex Court deem it appropriate to award the
father and unmarried sister of the deceased,
an amount of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of
filial consortium.

23. In view of the law laid down by
the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court
in Pranay Sethi (supra), which was
followed in Santhosh Devi and Suresh
Chandra Bagmaldoshi referred to supra,
the compensation payable under the
conventional heads of loss of estate, loss
of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs.15,000/-, 40,000/- and
Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid
figures quantified by the Apex Court
should be enhanced on percentage basis,
at the rate of 10%, in a span of every
three years.

24. In view of the law laid down by
the Apex Court in Magna General
Insurance Company Ltd (Supra) after
referring to the decision in Pranay Sethi
(Supra)
the
surviving
spouse
(respondent no. 1 herein) is entitled for
spousal consortium to the extent of
40,000/- instead of Rs. 2,500/- awarded.
Likewise the funeral expenses are liable
to be increased to Rs. 15,000/- from Rs.
2,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
The
appellants
herein
being
the
unmarried sister and father of the
deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.
40,000/- each on account of loss of filial
consortium.
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent nos. 1 to 3 has vehemently
argued that the respondent nos. 1 to 3
settled the claim with the Insurance
Company in the Appeal filed by them and
the settlement has already been given effect
to and now the Appellants herein may not
be entitled to any further compensation. In
the opinion of the Court the above
submission does not merit consideration in
as much as the present appellants were not
party to the settlement arrived at with the
Insurance Company and the decision
rendered in the FAFO (D) No. 290 of 2014
dated 03.10.2021 shall not bind the present
appellants. Ideally both the Appeals ought
to have been decided/ settled together. This
having not been done the present Appeal
has been considered on its own merits.
Since this Court has upheld the 10%
apportionment of the impugned award
dated 17.08.2013 in favour of the Appellant
no. 2, the Appellant having already
received a sum of Rs.5,28,033/- (being
10% of the award) and Rs.2,62,500/- (on
account of the enhancement in the
compensation in FAFO (D) No. 290 of
2014), the appellant No. 2 shall stand
entitled to Rs. 40,000/- on account of loss
of filial consortium only. The appellant no.
1 shall stand entitled to a sum of Rs.
40,000/- on account of loss of filial
consortium. All payments to the appellants
shall carry an interest of 6% per annum
from the date of the claim petition till the
date of actual payment/realization. The 5th
respondent/
Insurer/
ICICI
Lombard
General
Insurance
Company
through
Branch Manager Parsvanath Plaza Court
Road, Saharanpur (Insurer of Truck No.
RJ-11GA-2075) shall satisfy the additional
compensation granted in this Appeal
together with interest, within a period of
two months from the date of service of
certified copy of this judgment.

26. The Appeal is partly allowed to
the extent above. The impugned award
shall stand modified accordingly. No order
as to costs.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 762
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 302 of 1996

Lalti Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Jagdish Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Surendra Kumar Mishra, Sri Rajendra Tiwari,
Sri Rajesh Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section
173-Challenge
to-award
of
compensation- The deceased was 41
years of age and was working as a
vaccinator
in
P.H.C
-his
income
is
considered to be Rs. 2000/- p.m to which
as the deceased was in the age bracket of
40 to 50 years, 30% as future loss of
income requires to be added in view of the
Pranay Sethi Case- As far as amount
under the head of non-pecuniary damages
are concerned, it should be Rs.70,000/-,
granted multiplier of 14-The tribunal
erroneously deducted the amount of
family pension and amount receivable as
salary to the widow-These findings are
against the mandate of the Apex CourtAmount of Rs. 32,000/- be deducted and
interest
be
recounted
on
enhanced
amount-The interest on Rs. 32,000/-
would remain unaltered-As far as issue of
rate of interest is concerned, it would be
reduced to 9% from 12% , hence on the