# Smt. Anita & Ors v. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 1301
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-13
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 182 of 2019
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-anita-ors-v-iffco-tokio-general-insurance-co-ltd-anr-46549
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 -
Compensation - Enhancement - Income - it
was pleaded that deceased was earning Rs.
25,000/- per month by performing POP work -
1302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
document showing income tax return of the
financial year 2012-13 was filed - Tribunal
ignored the documentary evidence & took
notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month -
Held - notional income of the deceased for the
purposes of computing the compensation is
liable to be considered at Rs. 6,000/- per
month (Para 17)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - U.P.
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, Rule 220-A -
Compensation - Enhancement - provisions of
Rule 220-A should be allowed to operate only
upto the extent that it provides "better
benefits" to the claimant(s) under the Act of
1988, which is a beneficial legislation on the
aspect of grant of compensation (Para 28)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 -
Compensation - Enhancement - Future
Prospects 40% of the income - claimantsappellants
are
entitled
to
compensation
towards future prospects and enhancement
under conventional heads, such as, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
etc. - Loss of love and affection for entire
family (As per Rule 220-A (4) (iii) of the Rules
of 1998), Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses, Rs.
15,000/- Loss of Estate, Rs. 15,000/- Loss of
Consortium, Rs. 2,00,000/- [Rs. 40,000 x 5
(wife, son, daughter, mother and father) - Total
Compensation, Rs. 16,10,800/- along with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of claim petition till payment (Para 36)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,929 of 70,766. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39929 for what follows._

11 All. Smt. Anita & Ors. Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
1301
open to them to file an application for revocation
of the leave which can be considered on merits
and according to law.

18. Considering the case law, it cannot
be doubted that this revision is not maintainable.
The petitioners submitted that they have already
filed an objection before Court and contested the
application that the same should not be granted.
Learned counsel apprehended that if there is
already an order against them, it would prevent
them from filing an application for revoking the
leave.

19. "I do not think that such a
submission is in any way correct. Learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner is invoking the principle
of res judicata in the case. Once it is declared by
the Supreme Court as well as by this Court that the
order is administrative in character and same does
not affect the rights of the parties, nor there is
prejudice to the proposed defendant, there is no
scope for application of res judicata in such cases".
If any specific decision is required in that regard I
would only refer to the decision in Simon v.
Advocate General (1975 K.L.T 78) corresponding
to A.I.R. 1975 Kerala - 38 which is followed in
Kannan Adiyta's case cited supra.

27. In view of the declaration of law by
this Court and the Supreme Court, leave alone is
granted. After granting of leave, a suit is instituted.
Thereafter the Court functions as a Court of law.
At that time, the petitioners or any persons, who
are also likely to be impleaded can very well bring
to the notice of the Court that the leave was
granted without taking into consideration the
relevantt materials or that the principles settled for
granting leave were not followed etc. and can
apply to have the leave revoked. That power is
given to the Court of law."

12. No doubt, the case here presents a
background where this Court thinks that the
decree passed in the earlier suit ought to be
taken into account to judge, whether a
subsequent suit also under Section 92 CPC
relating to the same trust is at all maintainable,
but that would not render the order granting
leave under Section 92 CPC amenable to our
revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC.
The reason is far too obvious. The impugned
order does not decide any rights of parties and is
made at the stage before the suit comes into
being. Of course, it is open to the revisionist to
apply for revocation of leave to the Court that
has made the order impugned and if that
application is made, the Trial Court would be
bound to dispose of that application on merits
before proceeding with the suit. So far as this
revision goes, it is held to be not maintainable
and liable to be dismissed as such.

13.

This
revision
is,
accordingly,
dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no
order as to costs.
----------
(2021)12ILR A1301
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 182 of 2019

Smt. Anita & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Mukesh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govind Chaturvedi, Vaibhav Raj

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 -
Compensation - Enhancement - Income - it
was pleaded that deceased was earning Rs.
25,000/- per month by performing POP work -
1302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
document showing income tax return of the
financial year 2012-13 was filed - Tribunal
ignored the documentary evidence & took
notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month -
Held - notional income of the deceased for the
purposes of computing the compensation is
liable to be considered at Rs. 6,000/- per
month (Para 17)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - U.P.
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, Rule 220-A -
Compensation - Enhancement - provisions of
Rule 220-A should be allowed to operate only
upto the extent that it provides "better
benefits" to the claimant(s) under the Act of
1988, which is a beneficial legislation on the
aspect of grant of compensation (Para 28)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 -
Compensation - Enhancement - Future
Prospects 40% of the income - claimantsappellants
are
entitled
to
compensation
towards future prospects and enhancement
under conventional heads, such as, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
etc. - Loss of love and affection for entire
family (As per Rule 220-A (4) (iii) of the Rules
of 1998), Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses, Rs.
15,000/- Loss of Estate, Rs. 15,000/- Loss of
Consortium, Rs. 2,00,000/- [Rs. 40,000 x 5
(wife, son, daughter, mother and father) - Total
Compensation, Rs. 16,10,800/- along with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of claim petition till payment (Para 36)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nanu
Ram & ors. 2018 SCC Online SC 1546

2. Chameli Devi & ors. Vs Jivrail Mian & ors.; reported
in 2019 (4) TAC 724 (S.C.)

3. Smt. Sheela Pandey W/O Late Surendra Kumar
Pandey & ors. Vs The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Bena Ghabar Branch & ors. F.A.F.O. (D) No. 748 of
2011

4. Syed Sadiq & ors. Vs Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Com. Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 735

5. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Resha Devi & ors.
2017 (4) T.A.C. 288 (All.)

6. National Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680: 2017 ACJ 2700 7. New India
Assurance Com. Ltd.Vs Smt. Somwati & ors.; (2020) 9
SCC 644

7. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Shukla &
ors.; 2021 SCC Online 822

8. Kirti & anr. Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited
(2021) 2 SCC 166

9. Hem Raj Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 15
SCC 654

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Heard Sri Mukesh Singh, learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri Govind
Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

2. The present appeal has been filed for
enhancement of amount of compensation
awarded/granted by Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal/Additional District Judge/F.T.C. First,
District- Balrampur vide judgment and award
dated 18.12.2018 passed in Claim Petition No. 6
of 2014 (Smt. Anita and others v. Mahendra and
another).

3. The issues framed by the Tribunal for
the purposes of adjudication of claim on
reproduction reads as under:-

"vo/kk;Z fcUnq

5- mHk;i{k ds vfHkoPkuksa ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr
;kfpdk ds fuLrkj.k gsrq fnukad 07-05-2016 dks fuEufyf[kr
vo/kk;Z fcUnq fojfpr fd;s x;s%&

1- D;k fnukad 24-12-2012 dks le; djhc 04%20
cts 'kke jsgjk ckckxat jksM ij Hkqrgk rky ds ikl ogn
xzke dsjkMhg Fkkuk{ks= jsgjk cktkj tuin cyjkeiqj esa
eksVjlkbfdy iath;u la0 ;w0ih0 43,u0 4694 dk pkyd
okgu dks rsth o ykijokgh&iwoZd pykrs gq, vk;k vkSj ihNs
11 All. Smt. Anita & Ors. Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
1303
ls vfuy dqekj dh eksVjlkbfdy iath;u la[;k ,e0,p0
14 Mh0 ,l0 5308 esa VDdj ekj nh] ftlls vfuy dqekj
dks XkEHkhj ,oa izk.k?kkrd pksVsa vk;h rFkk nq?kZVuk esa vk;h
pksVksa ds dkj.k nkSjku bykt fnukad 25-12-2012 dks esfMdy
dkyst y[kuÅ esa mldh e`R;q gks x;h\ ;fn gka rks izHkko

2- D;k mDr nq?kZVuk ds le; nq?kZVuk dkjd
okgu eksVjlkbZfdy iath;u la0 ;w0ih0 43,u0 4694 foi{kh
la0 2 bQdks Vksfd;ks tujy bU';ksjsUl da0 fy0 ds }kjk
fof/kor chfer Fkh vkSj okgu dk ifjpkyu chek dh 'krksZa ds
vuq:i fd;k tk jgk Fkk\ ;fn gka rks izHkko\

3- D;k mDr nq?kZVuk ds le; nq?kZVukdkjd
okgu eksVjlkbZfdy iath;u la0 ;w0ih0 43,u0 4694 ds
pkyd ds ikl okgu pykus dh oS/k ,oa izHkkoh pkyu
vuqKfIr Fkh] ;fn gka rks izHkko\

4- D;k ;kphx.k fdlh izdkj dk izfrdj izkIr
djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\ ;fn gka] rks fdruh /kujkf'k vkSj fdl
foi{kh ls\"

4. The findings of fact recorded by the Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal (in short "Tribunal")
regarding age of deceased i.e. 23 years at the time
of accident, date of accident i.e. 24.12.2012, place
of accident i.e. Village- Karodi, P.S.- Rehra Bazar,
District- Balrampur, date of death i.e. 25.12.2012,
negligence of driver of Motorcycle bearing
Registration No. U.P 43N9694, validity of
insurance policy and validity of driving licence,
are not in dispute, meaning thereby that there is no
dispute regarding findings recorded by the
Tribunal on the issue Nos. 1, 2 & 3. There is also
no dispute on the issue of multiplier of 18, which
was applied by the Tribunal for computing the
compensation. As per the pleadings on record, the
deceased-Anil Kumar expired leaving behind his
wife-Anita,
son-Harshverdhan,
daughter-Km.
Pratima,
mother-Smt.
Geeta
Devi,
fatherChandrika Prasad and brother-Mukesh Kumar and
after considering the number of dependants, the
Tribunal applied multiplicand of 1/4. This
multiplicand is also not in dispute. However, while
awarding the total amount of compensation, the
Tribunal rejected the claim of Mukesh Kumar,
brother of the deceased.

5. As the present appeal relates to
enhancement of amount of compensation, the
issue No. 4 is under consideration.

6. After recording the findings on issue
Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the Tribunal awarded
compensation vide judgment and award, under
appeal, dated 18.12.2018. The relevant portion
of the same on reproduction reads as under:-

"31- &%vo/kk;Z fcUnq la0 4 dk fuLrkj.k%&

4& D;k ;kphx.k fdlh izdkj dk izfrdj izkIr
djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\ ;fn gka] rks fdruh /kujkf'k vkSj fdl
foi{kh ls\

32- mijksDr leLr ifjppkZ ds vk/kkj ij ;g
Li"V gks pqdk gS fd fnukad 24-12-2012 dks 'kke 04%20 ij
jsgjk ckckxat jksM ij Hkqrgk rky ds ikl dsjkMhg xkao ds
ikl eksVjlkbZfdy iath;u la0 ;w0ih0 43,u0 4694 pkyd
okgu dks rhozxfr o ykijokgh ls pykdj vfuy dqekj dh
eksVjlkbZfdy esa VDdj ekj fn;k] ftllds vfuy dqekj dks
xEHkhj o izk.k&?kkrd pksVsa vk;h]a ftlds QyLo:i vfuy
dqekj dh e`R;q gks x;hA rnuqlkj ;kphx.k izfrdj ikus ds
vf/kdkjh gSaA ;kphx.k ds i{k esa fudys x;s fu"d"kZ ,oa
miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;kphx.k izfrdj e; C;kt izkIr
djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA

33- dfFkr nq?kZVuk ds le; eksVjlkbZfdy
iath;u la- ;w0ih0 43,u0 4694 bQdks Vksfd;k tujy
bU';ksjsUl d0fy0 ls chfer Fkh vkSj okgu dk ifjpkyu
foi{kh la0 1 egsUnz dqekj }kjk chek dh 'krksZ ds vuqikyu esa
fd;k tk jgk Fkk blfy, leLr izfrdj vnk djus dh
ftEesnkjh foi{kh la0 2 bQdks Vksfd;k tujy bU';ksjsUl
d0fy0 dh gksxhA

34- izfrdj dh /kujkf'k fdruh gksxh bl fcUnq
dk fuLrkj.k djus ls iwoZ U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk nq?kZVuk ds
le; e`rd vfuy dh vk;q] ekfld vkSj okf"kZd vk; dk
vadyu fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxkA

35- &%e`rd dh vk;q dk fu/kkZj.k%&

;kphx.k us ;kfpdk esa e`rd dh vk;q 27 o"kZ
gksuk vafdr dh gS] ijUrq e`rd dh vk;q ds lEcU/k esa 'kSf{kd
izi= i=koyh esa nkf[ky ugha fd;k gSA ;kph }kjk nkf[ky
iksLV ekVZe fjiksVZ esa e`rd vfuy dqekj dh vk;q 29 o"kZ
vafdr gS vkSj e`rd vfuy pfUnzdk oekZ iq= pfUnzdk fgrbZ
1304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
oekZ dk vk;dj foHkkx }kjk tkjh isudkMZ ua0
AKHPV1686L esa e`rd vfuy oekZ dh tUefrfFk 12-091989 vafdr gSA ;gh tUefrfFk egkjk"Va jkT; eksVj Makbfoax
ykbZlsal }kjk vfuy oekZ ds i{k esa tkjh pkyu
vuqKfIr&i= esa vafdr gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;kfpdk ,oa
iksLVekVZe vk[;k esa e`rd dh vk;q dze'k 27 ,o 29 o"kZ
xyr lkfcr gksrh gS] D;ksafd ?kVuk fnukad 24-12-2012 dks
isudkMZ o Mh0,y0 esa vafdr tUefrfFk ds vk/kkj ij e`rd
dh vk;q nq?kZVuk ds le; yxHkx 23 o"kZ 03 ekg 13 fnu
gksuk lkfcr gksrh gSA ;kfpdk esa nkf[ky izi=ksa ds vk/kkj ij
U;k;kf/kdj.k dh jk; esa e`rd vfuy dqekj dh vk;q nq?kZVuk
ds le; 23 o"kZ vo/kkfjr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk
gSA

36- &%ekfld vk;%&

;kfpdk esa ;kphx.k us e`rd dks 25000@&
:i;s izfr ekg dh vkSlr vk; ih0vks0ih0 ds dkjksckj ls
dekuk dgk gS vkSj mldh ekfld vk; eq0 25000@& :i;s
izfr ekg ;kfpdk esa vafdr dh gSA ;kfpdk esa e`rd dks
ih0vks0ih0 dk csgrjhu dkjhxj o Bsdk ysdj yscj ls dk;Z
djokuk dgk gSA e`rd Bsdsnkj Fkk vkSj og Bsdk ysdj yscj
ls dk;Z djokrk Fkk bl lEcU/k esa e`rd dk Bsdsnkjh dk
iathd`r ykbZlsal i=koyh ij nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gSA
e`rd }kjk ljdkj@izkbZosV dke dk Bsdk ysus ds lEcU/k esa
vuqcU/k&i= i=koyh esa nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gS] ftlls
;g Li"V gks lds fd e`rd Bsdk ysdj fu/kkZfjr /kujkf'k
izkIr djds Lo;a vFkok yscj ds ek/;e ls fofHkUu LFkkuksa ij
ih0vks0ih0 dk dk;Z Bsds ij djokrk FkkA ;kph us ejkBh
Hkk"kk esa vius ,oa Jh }kfjdk izlkn ekyk jke oekZ ds e/;
uksVjh }kjk izekf.kr bdjkjukek nkf[ky fd;k gS] ftlls
e`rd dh vk; fu/kkZfjr fd;s tkus esa dksbZ lgk;rk ugha
feyrh gSA ;kphx.k us LVsV cSad vkQ bf.M;k esa fofHkUu
frfFk;ksa ij vfuy oekZ ds [kkrk la0 20112343726 ,oa itkac
us'kuy cSad ds [kkrk la- 4518000100023321 eq0
99]000@&] 99]000@&] 29]700@&] 1]98]000@& tek
djus dh jlhnksa dh Nk;k izfr;ka nkf[ky dh gS] ijUrq mu
[kkrk la[;kvksa dh iklcqd nkf[ky ugha dh gS vkSj muesa
tek rFkk fudkyh x;h /kujkf'k dk dksbZ fooj.k ;kfpdk esa
nkf[ky ugha fd;k gSA dsoy o"kZ 2012&13 dk Vh0Mh0,l0
fooj.k i= nkf[ky fd;k gSA foRrh; o"kZ 2012&13 dk
vkbZ0Vh0vkj0 nkf[ky fd;k gS] ftlesa dqy vk;
1]78]890@& :i;s iznf'kZr fd;k gS] ijUrq mDr
vkbZ0Vh0vkj0 ds leFkZu esas iwjs o"kZ dk vk;&O;; fooj.k]
leLr cpr] cSdksa@,Q0Mh0vkj0 vkfn dh iklcqd i=koyh
esa nkf[ky ugha dh gSA o"kZ 2012&13 ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh
o"KZ dk bUde VSDl fjVuZ i=koyh esa nkf[ky ugha fd;k gSA
,slh fLFkfr esa ;kph dh okf"kZd vk; dsoy ,d o"kZ ds
vk;dj fooj.k ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr ugha dh tk ldrh gSA
;kphx.k }kjk e`rd vfuy dqekj dh ekfld vk; eq0
25]000@& :i;s fu/kkZj.k djus ds fy, vU; dksbZ lk{;
ugha nh x;h gS vkSj u gh dksbZ lk{kh vk; fu/kkZj.k ds
lEcU/k esa ijhf{kr djk;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa e`rd dh
ekfld vk; ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fu.khZr y{eh
nsoh o vU; cuke eksgEen rOoj o vU; 2008 1⁄421⁄2 Vh-,-lh-
394 1⁄4,l-lh-1⁄2 esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS fd orZeku
le; esa ,d LoLFk vf'kf{kr ,oa vizf'kf{kr etnwj Hkh
U;wure 100@& jkstkuk vFkok 3000@& :0 ekgokj vFkok
36000@& :0 okf"kZd dek ysrk gSA vr% ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa
esa mDr nq?kZVuk ds le; e`rd vfuy dqekj dh ekfld vk;
ekkuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh mijksDr fof/k O;oLFkk es
izfrikfnr fl}kUrksa ds vuqlkj 3000@& :- izfrekg vFkok
36]000@& :0 izfro"kZ vo/kkfjr dj fn;k tk;s rks blls
U;k; dh ea'kk iwjh gks tk;sxhA rnuqlkj nq?kZVuk ds le;
e`rd dh ekfld vk; 3000@& :0 vo/kkfjr dh tkrh gSA

&Hkkoh izR;k'kkvksa esa o`f}&

37- fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kphx.k }kjk viuh cgl
ds nkSjku esjs le{k ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd ;fn e`rd
thfor jgrk rks og viuh vk; esa c<+ksRrjh djrkA ,slh
fLFkfr esa mldh ekfld vk; esa 50% dh c<+ksRrjh@Hkkoh
izR;k'kk dks tksM+rs gq, ;kphx.k dks gqbZ vkfJrk dk uqdlku
fu/kkZfjr djus ds fy, tksM+k tkuk pkfg,A

38- bl lEcU/k esa eSaus ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; dh uthj Jherh ljyk oekZ o vU; cuke fnYYkh
ifjogu fuxe ,oa ,d vU; 2009 1⁄421⁄2 n0 eq0 n 161 1⁄4lq0
dks01⁄2 dk lE;d~ voyksdu fd;kA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky;
}kjk mDr uthj ds iSjk 10] 11 esa eqvkots dh ifjx.kuk dks
vkjEHk djus ds fy;s vk;dj dks de dj e`rd dh
okLrfod vk; fu/kkkZfjr fd;s tkus gsrq Hkkoh izR;k'kkvksa dk
mYys[k dj dksbZ /kujkf'k tksM+h tkuh pkfg, vFkok ugha] bl
iz'u ij ekuuh; U;k;ky; us fopkj fd;k gS rFkk ;g
vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd e`rd dh okLrfod vk; dks fu/kkZfjr
fd;s tkus gsrq Hkkoh izR;k'kkvks dks thouo`Rr c

40- m0iz0 eksVj ;ku 1⁄4X;kjoka la'kks/ku1⁄2
fu;ekoyh&2011 ds fu;e 220&d ,oa fof/k O;oLFkk f=yksd
pUnz 1⁄4UPSRTC Vs. TRILOK CHANDRA, 1996 Vol 4
SCC 3621⁄2& esa dgk x;k gS fd ;fn e`rd fookfgr gks rks
mldh O;fDrxr vkSj thou ds [kpsZ 1@4 gksxas tgka
ikfjokfjd lnL;ksa dh la[;k 4 ls 6 gSaA izLrqr izdj.k esa
e`rd dh okf"kZd vk; esa ls e`rd ds Lo;a ds [kpsZ ds fy,
,d pkSFkkbZ /kujkf'k dh dVkSrh ekuuk mfpr gksxkA blfy,
;fn e`rd thfor jgrk rks og vius Åij ekfld vk;
4]200@& dk 1@4 Hkkx ;kfu 1050@& :i;s Lo;a ij [kpZ
djrk rFkk 'ks"k 3]150@& :i;s ekfld vk; vFkkZr~ 3,150
11 All. Smt. Anita & Ors. Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
1305
x 12 = 37,800/- :i;s okf"kZd vk; ij ;kphx.k vkfJr
gksrsA

&xq.kkad ,oa izfrdj fu/kkZj.k&

41- vc gesa ;g ns[kuk gS fd bl ekeys esa
dkSu&lk xq.kkad ykxw gksxkA i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[kksa
ds vuqlkj e`rd dh vk;q nq?kZVuk ds le; 23 o"kZ vk;h gSA
ljyk oekZ o vU; cuke fnYyh VakaliksVZ dkWiksZjs'ku o vU;
,0vkbZ0vkj0 2009 lqizhe dksVZ ist&3104 esa ekuuh;
mPpre U;k;ky; us iSjk&21 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS
fd%&

"42. We therefore hold that the multiplier
to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of
the table above (prepared by applying Susamma
Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] ,
Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] and Charlie
[(2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] ), which
starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age
groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by
one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30
years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40
years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50
years, then reduced by two units for every five years,
that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60
years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70
years."

42- vr% ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk
vfHkfu/kkZfjr fl)kUrksa ds vk/kkj ij 23 o"kZ dh vk;q ds
fy, 18 dk xq.kkad yxk;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA bl
/kujkf'k 37]800@& :0 esa 18 ds xq.kkad dk xq.kk djus
ij ;g /kujkf'k 6]80]400@&:0 1⁄4N% yk[k vLlh gtkj
pkj lkS1⁄2 :i;s gksrh gSA bl izdkj e`rd vfuy dqekj dh
e`R;q ds dkj.k ;kphx.k dks dqy vkfFkZd {kfr eq0
6]80]400@&:i;s dh gqbZA mRrj izns'k eksVj ;ku
1⁄4X;kjgoka la'kks/ku1⁄2 fu;ekoyh&2011 ds fu;e 220 d 1⁄441⁄2
1⁄4rhu1⁄2 ds vuqlkj ;kphx.k }kjk e`rd vfuy dqekj dks
bykt gsrq jsgjk cktkj ls xks.Mk] xks.Mk ls y[kuÅ
esfMdy dkyst y[kuÅ vkokxeu esa gqvk O;; eq0
5]000@&:i;k] fdz;kdeZ esa gqvk O;; eq0 5]000@&
:i;k] ekufld d"V@ihM+k ,oa ifr lq[k ls oafpr gksus
gsrq eq0 10]000@& :i;s fnykrs gq, ;kphx.k dqy
/kujkf'k eq0 6,80,400 + 5,000 + 5,000 + 10,000=
7,00,400 @& 1⁄4lkr yk[k pkj lkS1⁄2 :i;s izfrdj izkIRk
djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA e`rd ds nok bykt ds lEcU/k esa
dksbZ nok ipkZ@ fcy nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gS blfy,
bykt ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ izfrdj ugha fn;k tk jgk gSA

43- izLrqr ;kfpdk fnukad 28-01-2014 dks
nkf[ky dh x;h vkSj i=koyh esa ;kph us viuh lk{; fnukad
03-03-2017 dks vR;ar foyEc ls izLrqr dh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa
;kphx.k bl izfrdj dh /kujkf'k ij ;kfpdk esa lk{; izLrqr
djus dh frfFk 03-03-2017 ls N% izfr'kr okf"kZd lk/kkj.k
c;kt Hkh rk vnk;xh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA

44- iwoZ foospu ls ;g Li"V gks pqdk gS fd
nq?kZVuk dh frfFk o le; ij nq?kZVuk dkjd eksVjlkbZfdy
iath;u la0 ;w0ih0 43 ,u0 4694 foi{kh la0 2 bQdks
Vksfd;ks tujy bU';ksjsUl dEiuh fyfeVsM ds ;gka chfer
FkhA vr% ;kphx.k dks izkIr gksus okyh leLr izfrdj dh
/kujkf'k e; C;kt vnk djus dh ftEesnkjh foIk{kh la0 2
bQdks Vksfd;ks tujy bU';ksjsUl dEiuh fyfeVsM dh gksxhA

45- ;kph la0 6 eqds'k dqekj ukckfyx Jh
pfUnzdk izlkn oekZ dk iq= gSA og e`rd ij fdl izdkj
vkfJr gS ;g ;kphx.k us viuh lk{; ls lkfcr ugha fd;k
gS] tcfd mlds izkd`frd ekrk&firk thfor gSaA eqds'k dqekj
ds [kkuiku o jgu&lgu dh leLr ftEesnkjh mlds firk
dh gS] u fd mlds cM+s HkkbZ e`rd vfuy dqekj dhA lk{;
ds vHkko esa ;kph la0 6 eqds'k dqekj izLrqr ;kfpdk ds
ek/;e ls dksbZ izfrdj izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugh gSA

46- bl izdkj ;kphx.k Jherh vuhrk] g"kZo/kZu
oekZ] dq0 izfrek] Jherh xhrk nsoh] pfUnzdk izlkn oekZ dh
izfrdj ;kfpdk eq0 7]00]400@& 1⁄4lkr yk[k pkj lkS1⁄2 :i;s
izfrdj ,oa mlesa lk{; izLrqr djus ds fnukad 03-03-2017
ls N% izfr'kr okf"kZd lk/kkj.k C;kt dh vnk;xh gsrq foi{kh
la0 2 ds fo:) Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA
vkns'k

47- ;kphx.k }kjk izLrqr izfrdj ;kfpdk vkaf'kd
:i ls Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk ;kphx.k ds i{k esa ,oa
foi{kh la0 2 bQdks Vksfd;ks tujy bU';ksjsUl dEiuh
fyfeVsM ds fo:}] vadu eq0 7]00]400@&1⁄4lkr yk[k pkj
lkS1⁄2 :i;s dk vokMZ@vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr djrs gq, foi{kh la0
2 bQdks Vksfd;ks tujy bU';ksjsUl dEiuh fyfeVsM dks
vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og mDr /kujkf'k dks bl vkns'k
dh frfFk ls ,d ekg ds vUnj ;kphx.k dks vnk djs vU;Fkk
;kphx.k dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd og izfrdj dh mDr /kujkf'k
foi{kh la0 2 ls fof/k vulqkj U;k;ky; ds ek/;e ls olwy
dj ysaA ;kphx.k ;kfpdk esa lk{; izLrqr djus dh fnukad
03-03-2017 ls okLrfod Hkqxrku gksus dh frfFk rd lEiw.kZ
izfrdj dh /kujkf'k ij N% izfr'kr okf"kZd lk/kkj.k C;kt
izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA

48- mijksDr izfrdj /kujkf'k esa ls ;kfpuh la0 1
Jherh vuhrk tks e`rd dh iRuh gS mldks feyus okyh
1306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
/kujkf'k vadu 2]00]400@&:0 1⁄4nks yk[k pkj lkS1⁄2 :i;s esa
ls eq0 1]00]000@& :i;s ,dkmUVis;h psd ds ek/;e ls
izkIr djsxh rFkk 'ks"k /kujkf'k eq0 1]00]400@& :i;s rhu
o"kZ dh vof/k rd ds fy, fdlh jk"Vah;d`r cSad esa lkof/k
tek ;kstuk ds rgr fu{ksfir dh tk;sxhA ukckfyxku
;kfpuh la0&2 g"kZo/kZu oekZ ,oa ;kph la0 3 dq0 izfrek tks
e`rd ds iq= ,oa iq=h gSa muesa ls izR;sd dks feyus okyh
/kujkf'k vadu 1]50]000@& 1⁄4,d yk[k ipkl gtkj1⁄2 :i;s
izR;sd ds ckfyx gksus rd dh vof/k ds fy, fu;ekuqlkj
fdlh jk"Vah;d`r cSad dh lkof/k tek ;kstuk ds rgr
fu{ksfir dh tk;sxhA ;kph la0 4 Jherh xhrk nsoh tks e`rd
dh ekrk gS mldks feyus okyh /kujkf'k vadu 1]00]000@&
:0 1⁄4,d yk[k1⁄2 :i;s esa ls eq0 50]000@& :i;s
,dkmUVis;h psd ds ek/;e ls izkIr djsxh rFkk 'ks"k /kujkf'k
eq0 50]000@& :i;s rhu o"kZ dh vof/k rd ds fy, fdlh
jk"Vh;d`r cSad esa lkof/k tek ;kstuk ds rgr fu{ksfir dh
tk;sxhA ;kph la0 5 pfUnzdk izlkn oekZ tks e`rd ds firk
gaS mldks feyus okyh /kujkf'k vadu 1]00]000@& :0 1⁄4,d
yk[k1⁄2 :Ik;s esa ls eq0 50]000@& :i;s ,dkmUVis;h psd ds
ek/;e ls izkIr djsxsa rFkk 'ks"k /kujkf'k eq0 50]000 :i;s
rhu o"kZ dh vof/k rd ds fy, fdlh jk"Vah;d`r cSad esa
lkof/k tek ;kstuk ds rgr fu{ksfir dh tk;sxhA

49- mijksDr ,Q0Mh0vkj0 ij U;k;ky; dh
vuqefr ds oxSj dksbZ _.k Lohdkj vFkok Hkqxrku ugha fd;k
tk;sxk tks dsUnzh; ukftj] ftyk tth] cyjkeiqj ds ikl
lqjf{kr j[kh tk;sxh vkSj os mUgs fu;ekuqlkj uohuhd`r
djkrs jgsaxsAa"

7. While pressing the present appeal for
enhancement of amount of compensation,
learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
before the Tribunal, it was specifically pleaded
that the deceased was earning Rs. 25,000/- per
month by performing POP work and on this
aspect, evidence was also placed before the
Tribunal i.e. a document showing income tax
return of the financial year 2012-13, however,
the Tribunal ignored the documentary evidence
placed before it so as the oral evidence and
considered it appropriate to grant amount of
compensation taking note of notional income of
Rs. 3,000/- per month, as such, the amount of
compensation is liable to be enhanced.

8. Opposing the prayer of the learned
counsel
for
the
appellants,
Sri
Govind
Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short
"Company") submitted that the finding of the
Tribunal on the aforesaid issue is not liable to be
interfered with by this Court as the appellants,
claimants before the Tribunal, filed their income
tax returns only of one year i.e. financial year
2012-13. There are several Authorities in this
regard, as such, the finding on this issue is just
and proper.

9. In response to above, learned counsel for
the appellants submitted that justice would
suffice, if this Court after taking note of
pronouncements on the issue of notional income,
enhances the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.

10. Elaborating his arguments, learned
counsel for the appellants submitted that in the
case of Magma General Insurance Company
Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and Others; reported in
2018 SCC Online SC 1546, wherein, the
accident took place in the year 2013, the Hon'ble
Apex Court affirmed the notional income at Rs.
6,000/-
per
month
and
enhanced
the
compensation in relation to other heads.

11. He further submitted that in the case of
Chameli Devi and Others vs. Jivrail Mian and
Others; reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 (S.C.),
wherein, the accident took place on 02.01.2001,
the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the notional
income at Rs. 200/- per day, meaning thereby
that the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering
the case of Chameli Devi (supra) considered it
appropriate to grant compensation after taking
note of notional income at Rs. 200/- per day i.e.
Rs. 6,000/- per month. The relevant paras on
reproduction read as under:-

"Keeping in view the fact that the
accident took place in 2001 and the deceased
was a carpenter, it would not be unjustified to
assess his income at Rs.200/- per day. It is true
11 All. Smt. Anita & Ors. Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
1307
that carpenter may not get per work every day,
hence, we access the income at Rs.5000/- per
month. Adding 40% for future prospects
Rs.2,000/-, the total income works out to
Rs.7,000/-. Deducting 1/5 for personal expenses,
keeping in view a large number of dependents,
the datum figure comes out to Rs.5,600/- per
month or Rs.67,200/- per year. Applying
multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to
Rs.10,75,200/-. Rs.70,000/- is added towards
other non-conventional heads as laid down in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 : 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673.
The
total
compensation
comes
out
to
Rs.11,45,200/-."

12. On the issue of notional income,
further reliance has also been placed on the
judgment dated 10.12.2014 passed in F.A.F.O.
(D) No. 748 of 2011 (Smt. Sheela Pandey W/O
Late Surendra Kumar Pandey & 4 Others. vs.
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Bena
Ghabar Branch & 2 Others). In this case, this
Court, for granting compensation, assessed the
notional income of the deceased, who was doing
business of selling milk/ diary business, at Rs.
6,500/- per month.

13. He further submitted that in the
judgment passed in the case of Syed Sadiq And
Others vs. Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Company Limited; reported in
(2014) 2 SCC 735, the deceased was Vegetable
Vendor and the Hon'ble Apex Court, for the
purposes of granting of compensation, after
considering the state of economy and rising
prices in agricultural products observed that a
vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of
earning Rs. 6,500/- per month. Para 9 of the
same is as under:-

"9. There is no reason in the instant
case for the Tribunal and the High Court to
ask for evidence of monthly income of the
appellant claimant. On the other hand, going
by the present state of economy and the rising
prices in agricultural products, we are
inclined to believe that a vegetable vendor is
reasonably capable of earning Rs 6500 per
month.".

14. On the issue of notional income at
Rs. 6,000/-, learned counsel for the appellants
further submitted that in the case of New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Resha Devi and
Others; reported in 2017 (4) T.A.C. 288
(All.), this Court, in para 8, observed that
"there can be no exact uniform rule for
measuring the value of the human life and the
measure of damages cannot be arrived at by
precise mathematical calculations. Obviously
award of damages would depend upon the
particular facts and circumstances of the case
but the element of fairness in the amount of
compensation so determined is the ultimate
guiding factor. In such view of the matter,
presumption of Rs. 100/- per day as notional
income even for a unskilled labour in the year
2014 appears to us to be frugal and by no
stretch of imagination to be just even the
minimum wages fixed by the State Government
is much higher than that looking to the rise in
cost index. We are of the considered upon that
notional income of an unskilled labour could
not be less than Rs. 200/- per day."

15. In continuation, learned counsel for
the appellants submitted that in the instant
case, the deceased was earning Rs. 25,000/- by
carrying out POP work at Mumbai, as such,
considering the inflation & devaluation of
rupee and increase in
cost
of living,
particularly at Mumbai, the compensation be
enhanced considering the notional income of
deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month.

16. Learned counsel for the Company
vehemently opposed the issue of notional
income raised by the learned counsel for the
appellants, however, he could not place any
1308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment, wherein, anything otherwise has been
held.

17. Considering the date of accident i.e.
24.12.2012 and the fact that the deceased was
earning Rs. 25,000/- per month by performing
POP work was not proved by placing required
documentary evidence as also the law settled on
the issue of notional income, this Court is of the
view that the notional income of the deceased, in
the instant case, for the purposes of computing
the compensation is liable to be considered at
Rs. 6,000/- per month.

18. Learned counsel for the appellants also
stated that the claimants are also entitled to
amount(s) under other heads including the
conventional heads i.e. funeral expenses, loss of
estate and loss of consortium, as held by the
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others;
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680: 2017 ACJ 2700
and New India Assurance Company Limited
vs. Smt. Somwati and Others; (2020) 9 SCC
644.

19. Relevant paragraph 59 of the judgment
passed in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) reads
as under:-

59. In view of the aforesaid analysis,
we proceed to record our conclusions:

59.1. The
two-Judge
Bench
in Santosh
Devi [Santosh
Devi v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012)
3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 :
(2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] should have been
well advised to refer the matter to a larger
Bench as it was taking a different view than
what has been stated in Sarla Verma[Sarla
Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2
SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , a
judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because
a coordinate Bench of the same strength
cannot take a contrary view than what has
been held by another coordinate Bench.

59.2. As Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir
Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ)
179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC
(L&S) 149] has not taken note of the decision
in Reshma Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan
Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ)
191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826] , which was
delivered at earlier point of time, the decision
in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9
SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3
SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] is
not a binding precedent.

59.3. While determining the income,
an addition of 50% of actual salary to the
income of the deceased towards future
prospects,
where
the
deceased
had
a
permanent job and was below the age of 40
years, should be made. The addition should be
30%, if the age of the deceased was between
40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition
should be 15%. Actual salary should be read
as actual salary less tax.

59.4. In case the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of
40% of the established income should be the
warrant where the deceased was below the age
of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the
deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years
and 10% where the deceased was between the
age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
necessary
method
of
computation.
The
established income means the income minus the
tax component.

59.5. For
determination
of
the
multiplicand, the deduction for personal and
living expenses, the tribunals and the courts
shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla
Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121
11 All. Smt. Anita & Ors. Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
1309
: (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri)
1002] which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

59.6. The selection of multiplier shall
be
as
indicated
in
the
Table
in Sarla
Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121
: (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri)
1002] read with para 42 of that judgment.

59.7. The age of the deceased should
be the basis for applying the multiplier.

59.8. Reasonable
figures
on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss
of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs
15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively.
The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at
the rate of 10% in every three years."

20. At this stage, considering para 59 of
the judgment passed in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), this Court feel that it would be
appropriate to refer the relevant paras of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC
121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC
(Cri) 1002 : 2009 SCC OnLine SC 797, which
are as under:-

"30. Though in some cases the
deduction to be made towards personal and
living expenses is calculated on the basis of
units indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC
362] , the general practice is to apply
standardised deductions. Having considered
several subsequent decisions of this Court, we
are of the view that where the deceased was
married, the deduction towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased, should be onethird (1/3rd) where the number of dependent
family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th)
where the number of dependent family members
is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number
of dependent family members exceeds six.

31. Where the deceased was a
bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the
deduction follows a different principle. In
regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted
as personal and living expenses, because it is
assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend
more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also
the possibility of his getting married in a short
time, in which event the contribution to the
parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut
drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the
contrary, the father is likely to have his own
income and will not be considered as a
dependant and the mother alone will be
considered as a dependant. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters
will not be considered as dependants, because
they will either be independent and earning, or
married, or be dependent on the father.

`

32. Thus even if the deceased is
survived by parents and siblings, only the
mother would be considered to be a dependant,
and 50% would be treated as the personal and
living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the
contribution to the family. However, where the
family of the bachelor is large and dependent on
the income of the deceased, as in a case where
he has a widowed mother and large number of
younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his
personal and living expenses may be restricted
to one-third and contribution to the family will
be taken as two-third.

33............

34............

35............

36............

37............

38............
1310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

39............

40............

41............

42. We therefore hold that the
multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in
Column (4) of the table above (prepared by
applying Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 :
1994 SCC (Cri) 335] , Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4
SCC 362] and Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720 :
2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] ), which starts with an
operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of
15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one
unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to
30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36
to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13
for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for
every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years,
M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years
and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."

21. In the case of Smt. Somwati (supra),
relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellants, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as
under:-

"30. The next judgment which needs to
be noted is Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Nanu Ram [Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : (2019) 3
SCC (Civ) 146 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153] , the
concept of consortium was explained in paras
21, 22 and 23, which are as follows : (SCC pp.
136-37)

"21. A Constitution Bench of this
Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 :
(2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri)
205] dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case.
One of these heads is loss of consortium. 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. [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC
54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC
(Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149]

21.1. 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, cooperation, affection, and aid of the
other in every conjugal relation.' [Black's Law
Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).]

21.2. 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.'

21.3. 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.

22. Consortium is a special prism
reflecting changing norms about the status and
worth
of
actual
relationships.
Modern
jurisdictions world over have recognised 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
11 All. Smt. Anita & Ors. Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
1311
the parents is a compensation for loss of the
love, affection, care and companionship of the
deceased child.

23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a
beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief
to the victims or their families, in cases of
genuine claims. In case where a parent has 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 Act. A few High Courts have awarded
compensation on this count [ Rajasthan High
Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC
OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368;
Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v.
Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 :
(2014) 3 UC 1687; Lakshman v. Susheela
Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 :
(1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] . However, there was no
clarity with respect to the principles on which
compensation could be awarded on loss of filial
consortium."

31. A two-Judge Bench in Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. [Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC
130 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 146 : (2019) 3 SCC
(Cri) 153] awarded the amount of Rs 40,000 to
father and sister of the deceased. Para 24 is as
follows : (SCC p. 137)

"24. 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 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ)
248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . In the present
case, we deem it appropriate to award the father
and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs
40,000 each for loss of filial consortium."

32. A three-Judge Bench in United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur
[United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder
Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 : 2020 SCC OnLine
SC 410] , had reaffirmed the view of the twoJudge Bench in Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. [Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.