Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:36458 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 398 of 2014 Reserved on: 10.10.2025 Date of decision: 31.10.2025 ________________________________________________ Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. …..Appellant. Versus Sushma & others. ……Respondents. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. For respondent No. 1 to 5: Mr. Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajat Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The instant appeal has been maintained by appellant-Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘The Act’) against impugned award, dated 13.12.2013, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby MAC Petition No. 39-S/2 of 2012/11, filed by the petitioners- claimants, who are respondents herein (hereinafter referred 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:36458 ) 2 to as “the claimants”) under Section 166 of the Act, was allowed and the petitioners/claimants were held entitled for compensation of Rs.11,02,200/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till final realization of the amount and appellant-Insurance Company was held liable to pay the amount of compensation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner- claimants, i.e., Smt. Sushma widow of late Shri Ramesh Chand, Ms. Rinkel, Ms. Sheetal, Ms. Puja and Mr. Rajneesh (being minor daughters and son of late Shri Ramesh Chand), maintained a claim petition before the learned Tribunal below on account of death of Ramesh Chand (deceased) in a motor vehicle accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. HR-68-1308, i.e., LP Truck owned by Shri Ram Chand (owner/respondent No. 6 herein), which was insured with appellant-Insurance Company. 3. The deceased was travelling in the ill-fated vehicle, as owner of goods. He was carrying 45 apple boxes in his vehicle and when the vehicle reached near Minspul near Bamta on 27.09.2010, the vehicle met with an accident. FIR No. 55 of 2010, dated 27.09.2010 was registered at Police Station, Chopal. The accident took place due to rash Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:36458 ) 3 and negligent driving of the vehicle and as per the petitioners/claimants, the deceased was 47 years old and doing private work of tailoring and he used to look after orchard and landed property. The claimants further averred that the deceased was matriculate and he was skilled in tailoring work and he used to earn more than rupees three lacs by sale of apples. The petitioners/claimants had to engage labour for maintaining the orchard after the death of the deceased. Lastly, the petitioners/claimants sought compensation of Rs.28,50,000/- alongwith interest 18% per annum. 4. The respondents, i.e., owner-cum-driver Shri Ram Chander (respondent No. 1) and Insurance Company (respondent No. 2) contested the claim petition. Respondent No. 1 in his reply admitted the accident, however, income of the deceased was denied. He contended that he was having valid driving licence upto 06.01.2010 and the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company), vide policy No.102017/31/10000551 and the policy was valid from 15.10.2009 to midnight of 14.10.2010. 5. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company contended that the driver was not having valid and effective Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:36458 ) 4 driving licence, petition was collusive, vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and route permit and other documents were not valid. Respondent No. 2 also denied the income of the deceased. 6. On 04.07.2012 the learned Tribunal below had framed the following issues for consideration and adjudication: “1. Whether the death of Ramesh Chand the predecessor in interest of the petitioners occurred in a road accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 on 27.02.2010 at Bamta involving vehicle No. HR-68-1308, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is decided in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.28.5 lacs? OPP 3. Whether the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident? OPR-2 4. Whether the vehicle in question was plied in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR-2 5. Whether the petition is collusive between petitioner and respondent No. 1? OPR 6. Relief.” 7. After deciding issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioners/claimants, issues No. 3 and 4 against respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company), issue No. 5 against the respondents, the claim petition was allowed and petitioners (claimants) were held entitled for compensation of Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:36458 ) 5 Rs.11,02,200/- to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, was held liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant- Insurance Company preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 13.12.2013. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal had made wrong calculations while assessing the income of the deceased. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.45,00/- per month and while calculating and adding 30% increase in the income of the deceased, wrongly assumed the income of the deceased as Rs.7800/-. However, if 30% increase is calculated and added to sum of Rs.4500/- then the same after calculation comes to Rs.1350/- and after adding the same in the monthly income of Rs.4500/-, the same comes to Rs.5850/-. 10. It is not in dispute that the vehicle, bearing Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:36458 ) 6 registration No. HR-68-1308, was owned by Shri Ram Chander (respondent No. 6 herein, who had expired during the pendency of the instant appeal) and on 27.09.2010, deceased-Ramesh Chand was travelling in the vehicle of respondent No. 6 alongwith 45 apple boxes, which were to be transported to Delhi. The accident took place at Minspul, near Bamta, on 30.01.2013, at around 07:30 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck and the deceased died at the spot. 11. The learned Tribunal below had assessed the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.4500/- and the learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the income assessed by the learned Tribunal below. 12. Admittedly, at the time of the accident, there were five dependents of the deceased, i.e., his widow, daughters and son. In Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Apex Court, on the question of deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased held that, the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from his monthly income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependents. Where the deceased was Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:36458 ) 7 married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth where the number of dependent family members exceeds 6. 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. 13. In the instant case, since there were five family members who were dependent upon the income of the deceased at the time of accident, 1/4th of his income is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra). 14. In National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, it has been held that while determining the income, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary and between the age of 40 to 50 years, an addition of 25% of the established income to the income of the deceased towards Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:36458 ) 8 future prospects should be made. Paras 59.4 of the said judgment read as follows:- 59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed 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.” 15. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the deceased was of 47 years of age and as per the claimants, he was doing private work of tailoring and used to look after orchard and landed property. Therefore,in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), an addition of 25% of the notional monthly income of the deceased can be made towards future prospects. 16. The learned Tribunal below has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4500/-. The deceased was 47 years old and while computing the future prospects @ 25%, the income of the deceased comes out to Rs.5625/- per month. Thus, after the deduction of 1/4th of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution to family comes out to Rs. 4219/- per month and his annual contribution comes out to Rs. 50,628/-( 4219/- x 12). Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:36458 ) 9 17. In Sarla Verma’s case (supra), it has further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), 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. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is as under:- ‘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, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), 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.” 18. Since the deceased was 47 years of age, as such by applying the multiplier of ‘13’ as per the settled law, the compensation under the head, loss of dependency is re-fixed as Rs.6,58,164/- (56,628/- x 13). Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:36458 ) 10 19. Now, coming to the last aspect, i.e., the amount under conventional heads. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for the conventional heads, namely, “Loss of Estate”, “Loss of Consortium” and “Funeral Expenses” amount of compensation is fixed as Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is as under: “52. …. …. ….. It seems to us that 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 principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.” 20. In Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgement reads as under: “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi 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 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:36458 ) 11 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: 21.1. Spousal consortium is general defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation o the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. 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 taining”. 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 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 love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.” 21. Having taken note of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment passed in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Somwati & others alongwith other matters, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:36458 ) 12 (2020) 9 Supreme Court Cases 644, has held as under: “34. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has also not under conventional head included any compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ which have been now further reiterated by three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra). It is thus now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded under the head ‘loss of lve and affection’. 35. The word ‘consortium’ has been defined in Black’s law Dictionary, 10th edition. The Black’s law dictionary also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium in following manner: “Consortium 1. The benefits that one person, esp. A spouse, is entitled to receive from another, including companionship, cooperation, affection, aid, financial support, and (between spouses) sexual relations a claim for loss of consortium. Filial consortium A child’s society, affection, and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium A parent’s society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium A spouse’s society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse.” 36. In Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) as well as United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), Three-Judge Bench laid down that the consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. In paragraph 87 of United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), ‘consortium’ to all the three claimants was thus awarded. Paragraph 87 is quoted below: “87. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three children as his dependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General (supra), the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads: i) Loss of estate: Rs.15,000 ii) Loss of consortium: a) Spousal consortium: Rs.40,000 b) Parental consortium: 40,000x3=Rs.1,20,000 iii) Funeral expenses: Rs.15,000” 37. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Pranay Sethi has only referred to spousal consortium and no other consortium was referred to in the judgment of Pranay Sethi, hence there is no justification for allowing the parental consortium and filial consortium. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has referred to amount of Rs.40,000/- to the ‘loss of consortium’ but the Constitution Bench had not addressed the issue as to whether consortium of Rs.40,000/- is only payable as spousal consortium. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:36458 ) 13 The judgment of Pranay Sethi cannot be read to mean that it lays down the proposition that the consortium is payable only to the wife. 38. The Three-judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) has categorically laid down that apart from spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable. We feel ourselves bound by the above judgment of Three Judge Bench. We, thus, cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of consortium awarded to each of the claimants is not sustainable. 39. We, thus, found the impugned judgments of the High Court awarding consortium to each of the claimants in accordance with law which does not warrant any interference in this appeal. We, however, accept the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that there is no justification for award of compensation under separate head ‘loss of love and affection’. The appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed insofar as the award of compensation under the head ‘loss of love and affection’.” 22. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, under the conventional heads, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.15,000/-, for loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses, petitioner No. 1, i.e., the widow of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, petitioners No. 2 to 5, i.e., the daughters and son are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each as parental consortium. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation is worked out as under: Head Amount (i) Loss of dependency Rs.6,58,164/- (ii) Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- (iii) Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:36458 ) 14 (iv) Spousal consortium Rs.40,000/- (payable to petitioner No.1) (v) Parental consortium Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/-each payable to petitioners No. 2 to 5 ) Total compensation awarded: Rs.8,88,164/- 23. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appeal filed by the insurance company is partly allowed. The impugned award stands modified and the petitioners- claimants are held entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs.8,88,164/-. This Court does not see any reason to interfere with the interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal below. The remaining terms of the impugned award, shall also remain the same. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 31st October, 2025 (virender)