,,,
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J",,,
1. Both the appeals arise from the Judgement dated 30th January 2016, passed by the learned District Judge III Cum P.O., Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,",,,
Bermo at Tenughat at Bokaro in Vahan Durghatna Dawa Wad Sankhya (M.A.C.C. No.) 92 of 2013, whereby the claim filed by the claimants has been allowed",,,
directing the appellant insurance company (insurer of Motor Cycle) to pay Rs.9,64,000/-. The insurance company is denying its liability and the claimants have",,,
filed the connected appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.,,,
2. On 11.04.2022, the appellant-Insurance Company had submitted that there has been fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The first",,,
breach was that the driver of the offending motorcycle did not have the driving licence. He referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,,,
in the case of Pappu Singh & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208, and submitted that adverse inference should have been",,,
drawn against the owner and right of recovery should have been granted to the Insurance Company by the Tribunal. The second breach as alleged was that the,,,
offending vehicle was without a registration number plate and it was submitted that the vehicle without displaying the registration number is a fundamental,,,
breach and it was asserted that the vehicle was registered after the date of accident.,,,
3. This Court exercised jurisdiction under Order XLI, Rule 25 C.P.C and framed three additional issues and directed the Tribunal to record additional evidence",,,
and return the file with findings. The additional issues so framed were as follows: -,,,
(i) Whether there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.,,,
(ii) Whether offending motorcycle bearing engine number and chassis number were registered on the date of accident.,,,
(iii) Whether the rider of the motorcycle possessed a valid driving license to drive two wheelers.,,,
The learned Tribunal decided all the three issues against the Insurance company.,,,
Arguments of the Insurance Company,,,
4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that they are only aggrieved with the adjudication of additional issue no.2 and there is no,,,
further contest with other issues. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was insured but the bone of contention is as to whether the vehicle was duly registered on,,,
the date of accident.,,,
5. The learned counsel for the Insurance company has referred to Rule 47 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to submit that for the purposes of registration",,,
of vehicle, insurance policy is a requirement, and therefore, insurance coverage is granted prior to registration of the vehicle. The learned counsel has relied",,,
upon the following judgments:,,,
a) (2014) 9 SCC 324 (Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.) paragraph 11 to 14.,,,
b) The order passed by this Court in Misc. Appeal No.157 of 2008 (National Insurance Co. Ltd., Deoghar Vs. Abha Gupta and othersd) ated 06.10.2015",,,
paragraph 6.,,,
c) Judgment passed by Madras High Court reported in 2012 0 Supreme (Madras) 3656 (Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Latha &,,,
Others), paragraph 4.",,,
6. With respect to the other appeal, in which the Insurance Company is a respondent, he has submitted that the there is an error in grant of compensation to the",,,
extent that future prospect of 40% has not been given and the conventional amount has not been duly computed to the extent of 70,000/-. The age of the",,,
deceased was 36 years.,,,
Argument of the claimants.,,,
7. It is submitted that â€",,,
a. future prospect has been left out;,,,
b. multiplier has been wrongly applied as 16 instead of 15;,,,
c. loss of consortium was to be calculated @ Rs.40,000/- per dependent, and there were four dependents;",,,
d. interest has been paid only till the date of the award but the same ought to be paid till the date of payment.,,,
8. The learned counsel has furnished a copy of the calculation in his short synopsis of argument. The learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments: -,,,
a) 2023 SCC Online SC 780 (Rahul Ganpatrao Sable Vs. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through Lrs. And others) paragraph 33;,,,
b) 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1723 (Harpreet Kaur and Others Vs. Mohinder Yadav and others) paragraph 14.,,,
c) On the point of interest, judgment reported inÂ2 022 SCC OnLine Jhar 1392 (Branch Manager of Bajaj Allianz",,,
General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mansura Bibi and others).,,,
Rejoinder argument of the insurance company to the argument of claimants,,,
9. The consortium has to be paid at total of Rs.40,000/- and not Rs.40,000/- per claimant. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed in the case",,,
of Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS. Bhagat Singh Rawat & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412 of 2023 (SLP (C) Nos. 11669-11671/2020).,,,
Arguments of the owner of the motor cycle.,,,
10. The learned Tribunal has duly considered written statement of the Insurance company and also the evidences and has returned a finding with respect to,,,
additional issue no.2 and held that the motor cycle bearing engine number and chassis number involved in the present case was registered on the date of the,,,
accident. He has referred to paragraph no.34 of the findings of the learned Tribunal.,,,
Insurance company never led any evidence, neither at the initial point nor at the time of deciding additional issues.",,,
He has also relied upon the following judgements to submit that insurance company cannot be permitted to go beyond its pleading: -,,,
a) (2008) 14 SCR 621 (Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal & Anr.),,,
b) FAO  No.2433  of  2018  (Reliance  General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Karnail Kaur and Ors.),,,
Findings of this Court,,,
11. Undisputed facts are as under: -,,,
a. Manoj Rajak (opposite party no.2 before the tribunal-owner cum driver of the motor cycle) was travelling with Prakash Kumar Sinha (deceased) on public road on a,,,
Motorcycle (registration number JH-09V-2882).,,,
b. At the time of accident, motor cycle was not carrying the registration number.",,,
c. The registration number was issued after the accident.,,,
d. The motor cycle was insured on the date of accident showing Manoj Rajak as owner with the chassis number of the vehicle.,,,
e. Deceased aged 36 years died due to rash and negligent driving of Manoj Rajak. Deceased was working as salesman in a motorcycle showroom named Rahul Automobile at,,,
Petarbar. The showroom was owned by Manoj Rajak. The monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.6,000. The dependents of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs.",,,
18,75,000/-.",,,
12. On the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the points for determination involved",,,
in the appeals are: -,,,
(a) Whether the learned tribunal is justified in holding that the concerned motor cycle was duly registered in the name of the opposite party no.2 on,,,
the date of the accident?,,,
(b) Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of quantum of compensation?,,,
Point No. (a),,,
13. The facts relevant for the purposes of this case have already been mentioned above. The policy involved in the present case was valid during the period,,,
from 05.03.2012 to 04.03.2013, and the date of accident is 20.04.2013. The deceased was a sales man in Bajaj Motorcycle Showroom at Petarbar, namely",,,
Rahul automobile, and the owner-cum-driver of the motor cycle-Manoj Rajak was the owner of the show room.",,,
14. The claimants were the wife and three minor children of the deceased. In the claim petition, it was disclosed that the registration number of the vehicle was",,,
JH-09V-2882 bearing Engine No.31151 and Chassis no. 26404.,,,
15. A written statement was filed by the Insurance Company, whereby inter-alia a plea was taken at paragraph 11, that the deceased was pillion rider of the",,,
motorcycle Bajaj Platina without any registration number and died due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle. Further statement was made in paragraph,,,
12, that the Insurance Company admitted that the vehicle bearing registration number JH-09V-2282 was insured. It was also asserted that in paragraph 19 of",,,
the written statement, that all the required documents including registration documents, etc., should be directed to be produced and the liability to pay",,,
compensation was denied.,,,
16. So far as the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle-Manoj Rajak is concerned, it was claimed that the vehicle had a valid registration on the date of accident and",,,
he had a valid driving license which was renewed till 09.04.2017 and therefore Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation. It was asserted that the,,,
accident was sudden and unexpected without any cause in which the deceased was dashed by the motorcycle. It was stated that the deceased was working in,,,
Rahul Automobile at Bajaj Showroom and getting Rs.6000 per month as salary and was aged about 36 to 37 years; his service was of permanent nature. The,,,
motorcycle was comprehensively insured by virtue of a policy known as package policy.,,,
17. The records reveal that for the purposes of deciding additional issues, Manoj Rajak (the owner-cum-driver of the motor cycle - opposite party no. 2 before",,,
the Tribunal) was re-examined and also cross-examined. He filed evidence on affidavit. Manoj Rajak stated in his evidence that in connection with the vehicle,,,
involved in the present case, he had assigned the work of submission of Chalan to one employee, namely Ranjan Kumar, and he produced a photocopy of the",,,
Chalan bearing reference no.78555 dated 21.03.2013 (marked exhibit-M for identification) containing the Chassis number of the motor cycle. He stated that the,,,
Chalan was for the purposes of temporary registration and was duly deposited. Manoj Rajak asserted that ordinarily the registration is granted upon deposit of,,,
the Chalan only. During cross-examination, Manoj Rajak stated that he was not in possession of the owner book on 20.04.2013 and as of now he has the owner",,,
book but it is at home and he had filed a photocopy of the same before the Tribunal. He could not disclose the date of receipt of the owner book from the,,,
Transport Office, Bokaro. He stated that the original owner book in connection with the vehicle registration number JH09U2882 was not available with him as",,,
the vehicle was already sold. He denied that on the basis of the Chalan, the owner book was not issued by the District Transport Office in his name. He has",,,
accepted that without issuance of the owner book, it is not legal to ply the vehicle. He denied the suggestion that the Chalan was forged. Upon query of the",,,
court, he responded that the vehicle was sold and he did not remember the date of sale of the vehicle and at that point of time he was not the owner of the",,,
vehicle.,,,
18. Said Ranjan Kumar, who was the person entrusted with the work to submit the chalan by Manoj Rajak was examined as a witness. Ranjan Kumar stated",,,
that he was assigned the work to deposit the Chalan and therefore he was aware about the deposit of the Chalan by the owner of the vehicle (Manoj Rajak).,,,
He gave the details regarding the chalan dated 21.03.2013 and stated that normally, upon deposit of the chalan, the vehicle is treated as registered. He has been",,,
duly cross-examined. He stated during cross-examination that whosoever purchases a motorcycle, the showroom takes responsibility for registration and he had",,,
done registration of many vehicles. He stated that upon deposit of chalan, the owner book is issued after about 2 to 2.5 months by the District Transport Office.",,,
He stated that in connection with the vehicle involved, he had deposited the chalan for the purposes of registration in the District Transport Office, Bokaro on",,,
21.03.2013, and the owner book was issued after two and a half months. He stated that till 20.04.2013 (date of accident), the owner book was not issued. He",,,
stated that plying vehicle on road without insurance policy or owner book is not in accordance with law. He has stated that Manoj Rajak was the owner of the,,,
automobile showroom. He has denied that the photocopy of the chalan submitted in the court was forged.,,,
19. Upon conjoint reading of the evidence of both the aforesaid witnesses, who were examined for the purposes of deciding the additional issues framed by this",,,
Court, it is clear that it was the specific case on behalf of Manoj Rajak (owner-cum-driver of the motorcycle) that challan for the purposes of registration was",,,
deposited in the transport office on 21.03.2013 but the owner book was not issued for more than a month and both the witnesses have asserted that upon deposit,,,
of challan, the vehicle is treated as registered. It is not the case of the owner-cum-driver of the motor cycle (Manoj Rajak) that any registration certificate",,,
(temporary or permanent) was issued prior to the date of the accident.,,,
20. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 clearly provides that no person shall drive any motor vehicle unless the vehicle is registered in accordance,,,
with Chapter IV of the Act and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner. Sections 39, 41 and 43 to 46 of Motor Vehicles Act",,,
are quoted as under:,,,
“39. Necessity for registration. â€" No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public,,,
place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or,,,
cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner:,,,
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.,,,
40. Registration where to be made. ………..,,,
41. Registration , how to be made â€" (1) An application by or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle for registration shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by",,,
such documents, particulars and information and shall be made within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government:",,,
Provided that where a motor vehicle is jointly owned by more persons than one, the application shall be made by one of them on behalf of all the owners and such applicant",,,
shall be deemed to be the owner of the motor vehicle for the purposes of this Act.,,,
(2) An application referred to in sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed by the Central Government.,,,
(3) The registering authority shall issue to the owner of a motor vehicle registered by it a certificate of registration in such form and containing such particulars and,,,
information and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.,,,
(4) In addition to the other particulars required to be included in the certificate of registration, it shall also specify the type of the motor vehicle, being a type as the Central",,,
Government may, having regard to the design, construction and use of the motor vehicle, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify.",,,
(5) The registering authority shall enter the particulars of the certificate referred to in sub-section (3) in a register to be maintained in such form and manner as may be,,,
prescribed by the Central Government.,,,
(6) The registering authority shall assign to the vehicle, for display thereon, a distinguishing mark (in this Act referred to as the registration mark) consisting of one of the",,,
groups of such of those letters and followed by such letters and figures as are allotted to the State by the Central Government from time to time by notification in the Official,,,
Gazette, and displayed and shown on the motor vehicle in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.",,,
(7) A certificate of registration issued under sub-section (3), whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in respect of a motor vehicle, other than a transport",,,
vehicle, shall, subject to the provisions contained in this Act, be valid only for a period of fifteen years from the date of issue of such certificate and shall be renewable.",,,
(8) An application by or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle, other than a transport vehicle, for the renewal of a certificate of registration shall be made within such",,,
period and in such form, containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.",,,
(9) An application referred to in sub-section (8) shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed by the Central Government.,,,
(10) Subject to the provisions of section 56, the registering authority may, on receipt of an application under sub-section (8), renew the certificate of registration for a",,,
period of five years and intimate the fact to the original registering authority, if it is not the original registering authority.",,,
(11) If the owner fails to make an application under sub-section (1), or, as the case may be, under sub-section (8) within the period prescribed, the registering authority",,,
may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the owner to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under section 177, such amount not",,,
exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under sub- section (13):,,,
Provided that action under section 177 shall be taken against the owner where the owner fails to pay the said amount.,,,
(12) Where the owner has paid the amount under sub-section (11), no action shall be taken against him under section 177.",,,
(13) For the purposes of sub-section (11), the State Government may prescribe different amounts having regard to the period of delay on the part of the owner in making an",,,
application under sub-section (1) or sub-section (8).,,,
(14) An application for the issue of a duplicate certificate of registration shall be made to the 1 [last registering authority] in such form, containing such particulars and",,,
information along with such fee as may be prescribed by the Central Government.,,,
43. Temporary registration.â€"(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other,,,
prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate of registration,,,
and a temporary registration mark.,,,
(2) A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable:",,,
Provided that where a motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one,,,
month for being fitted with body or any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed, be",,,
extended by such further period or periods as the registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow.",,,
(3) In a case where the motor vehicle is held under hire purchase agreement, lease or hypothecation, the registering authority or other prescribed authority shall issue a",,,
temporary certificate of registration of such vehicle, which shall incorporate legibly and prominently the full name and address of the person with whom such agreement has",,,
been entered into by the owner.,,,
44. Production of vehicle at the time of registration.â€"The registering authority shall before proceeding to register a motor vehicle or renew the certificate of registration,,,
in respect of a motor vehicle, other than a transport vehicle, require the person applying for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewing the certificate of",,,
registration to produce the vehicle either before itself or such authority as the State Government may by order appoint in order that the registering authority may satisfy,,,
itself that the particulars contained in the application are true and that the vehicle complies with the requirements of this Act and of the rules made thereunder.,,,
45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration.â€"The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the",,,
certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen",,,
motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made thereunder, or if the applicant fails to furnish",,,
particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal",,,
of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of",,,
the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.",,,
46. Effectiveness in India of registration.â€"Subject to the provisions of section 47, a motor vehicle registered in accordance with this Chapter in any State shall not require",,,
to be registered elsewhere in India and a certificate of registration issued or in force under this Act in respect of such vehicle shall be effective throughout India.â€,,,
21. Upon conjoint reading of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that mere filing an application for registration (temporary or permanent) is not sufficient unless a",,,
registration certificate (temporary or permanent) is actually granted and the vehicle carries the registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner. There is no,,,
such provision which entitles the owner of the vehicle to ply the vehicle upon mere filing of an application for registration (temporary or permanent) unless the,,,
registration certificate is issued and registration mark is allotted. The registration certificate is valid from the date of issuance and not from the date of,,,
application. The registration requires satisfaction of the competent authority who also has the power to reject the application for registration. Registration of,,,
vehicle is neither a mere formality nor automatic.,,,
22. In the judgment passed by this Court in M.A. No. 157 of 2008 decided on 06.10.2015, the Tribunal had held that the vehicle was registered and the",,,
registration number was allotted on the date of accident itself but the registration certificate was signed on the next date. This Court held that the insurance,,,
company would pay the compensation and recover it from the owner of the vehicle.,,,
23. In the judgment passed in the case of “Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.â€r eported in (2014) 9 SCC 324, it has been held",,,
that a bare perusal of section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 shows that no person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration",,,
granted by the registering authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the said case, the accident had taken place after expiry of the one-month",,,
period of validity of temporary registration and nothing was brough on record that the owner had applied for permanent registration as contemplated under,,,
section 39 of the Act of 1988 or made an application for extension of the period of temporary registration on ground of some special reasons. It was held that,,,
using a vehicle on the public road without registration is not only an offence punishable under section 192 of the Act of 1988 but also a fundamental breach of,,,
the terms and conditions of policy contract.,,,
24. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in2 012 Supreme (Mad) 3656 (Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,,,
Vs. Latha & Others), the vehicle was being driven without displaying the certificate. In the said judgment, it was observed that having shown that the vehicle",,,
was not registered and due registration certificate having not been obtained in accordance with section 39 of the Act of 1988, the owner committed breach of",,,
the policy condition and the liability upon the insurance company was held to be unsustainable. The insurance company was directed to pay and recover from,,,
the owner by instituting appropriate proceedings.,,,
25. During the course of arguments of this case, it is not in dispute that the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle had a valid driving license on the date of accident. It",,,
is also an admitted fact that the motorcycle was granted registration no. JH 09V 2882 and was duly insured by the insurance company for the period from,,,
05.03.2013 to 04.03.2014 having the name of the owner (Manoj Rajak) and the chassis number of motorcycle and registration number of the motor cycle was,,,
not mentioned in the insurance policy. The date of accident is 20.04.2013. It is also not the case of Manoj Rajak that the registration certificate was issued on,,,
the date of accident, rather it is their case that they had applied for registration prior to the date of accident.",,,
26. Rule 47 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, as it stood on the date of accident (20.04.2013), provides that the application for registration of motor vehicle should",,,
be made within 7 days from taking delivery of vehicle excluding the period of journey and should be inter alia, accompanied with valid insurance certificate.",,,
Thus, for grant of registration, the vehicle should have a valid insurance coverage. Accordingly, having a valid insurance coverage does not imply that there was",,,
a valid registration (temporary or permanent). The Act of 1988 requires valid registration certificate to ply a vehicle and mere insurance coverage is not,,,
sufficient.,,,
27. Upon perusal of the order deciding the additional issue no.2, this Court finds that it was the case of Manoj Rajak that the insurance company did not raise a",,,
point in the written statement that the vehicle was not registered and it was also submitted that challan for registration having been deposited was itself enough,,,
to claim insurance coverage. The tribunal in its judgment has mentioned the Registration number of Motor Cycle as JH09V-2882 but has failed to scrutinize the,,,
date of registration (temporary or permanent). It is not the case of the claimants or the insured (Manoj Rajak) that motor cycle was registered on the date of,,,
accident but due to some reasons the Registration number was not displayed on the motor cycle. Rather, the evidence reveals that the owner-cum-driver of the",,,
vehicle (Manoj Rajak) tried to make out a case that upon deposit of challan, the vehicle is taken as registered. Apparently, the sole reason for not displaying the",,,
registration number on the motor cycle is that on the date of accident registration number was not issued and the actual date of registration could be known only,,,
upon production of the registration book which was not produced as the Manoj Rajak asserted that the vehicle was sold to third party but did not even disclose,,,
the date of sale of the vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle was registered but the moot point was the date of registration, that is, whether the vehicle was registered",,,
on the date of accident (either temporary or permanent). It was certainly for the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle (Manoj Rajak) to establish that the motor,,,
cycle was registered on the date of accident but evidence was led to prove that application for registration was made by showing deposit of challan and,,,
asserting that upon deposit of challan, the vehicle is taken as registered. Meaning thereby that the registration number was not issued and only an application for",,,
registration was filed with the challan.,,,
28. The finding of the learned Tribunal while deciding additional issue no.2 that there is no pleading that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. JH09V-,,,
2882 was not duly registered in the name of Manoj Rajak, has no relevance in the matter. There is no dispute that the offending vehicle was the vehicle which",,,
was later allotted registration no. JH09V-2882 but the material point was the date of registration and the claimants or Manoj Rajak (owner) miserably failed to,,,
prove that on the date of accident, the vehicle was registered rather they tried to prove that an application for registration was made and there is no oral",,,
evidence also that the registration certificate was granted on the date of registration.,,,
29. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the motorcycle was plying on the public",,,
place on the date and time of accident without any registration certificate issued in the name of the owner and consequently the owner had violated the terms,,,
and conditions of the insurance policy. Consequently, the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to additional issue no. 2 that the vehicle was registered on",,,
the date of the accident cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is accordingly set-aside. Consequently, the appellant insurance company shall pay and",,,
recover the amount of compensation from the owner (Manoj Rajak) after adjusting the amount already paid.,,,
30. Point no. (a) is accordingly decided in favour of the insurance company and against the owner (Manoj Rajak).,,,
Point no.(b),,,
Dispute in connection with the quantum of compensation,,,
31. Three judgments have been referred to by the learned counsel for the claimants:,,,
a) 2023 SCC Online SC 780 (Rahul Ganpatrao Sable Vs. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through Lrs. And others) paragraph 33;,,,
b) 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1723 (Harpreet Kaur and Others Vs. Mohinder Yadav and others) paragraph 14.,,,
c) On the point of interest, judgment reported inÂ2 022 SCC OnLine Jhar 1392 (Branch Manager of Bajaj Allianz General",,,
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mansura Bibi and others).,,,
32. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Somwati and othersâ€reported in (2020),,,
9 SCC 644, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the various judicial pronouncements, inter alia, in connection with 'loss of consortium' including",,,
judgment in “United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kauâr€ reported in 2020 SCC On Line SC 410 [(2021) 11 SCC 780] .The,,,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraphs 34 and 35 that the earlier judgment has approved the comprehensive interpretation given to the,,,
expression “consortium†to include spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filial consortium. It has also been held that 'loss of love and",,,
affection' is comprehended in 'loss of consortium', hence there was no justification to award compensation towards 'loss of love and affection' as a separate",,,
head.,,,
33. In the Constitution Bench judgment passed in the case of “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi†reported in (2017) 16,,,
SCC 680, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also not, under conventional head, included any compensation towards “loss of love and affection†and ultimately",,,
observed in paragraph 34 itself that it is now authoritatively well-settled that no compensation can be awarded under the head “loss of love and affectionâ€.,,,
Ultimately, in paragraph 45 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court was not justified in awarding compensation towards",,,
“loss of love and affection†@ Rs.50,000/- to each of the claimants. Paragraphs 33 to 39 of the judgment reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644 (supra) are quoted",,,
as under:,,,
“33. The three-Judge Bench in the above case approved the comprehensive interpretation given to the expression “consortium†to include spousal consortium,",,,
parental consortium as well as filial consortium. The three-Judge Bench, however, further laid down that “loss of love and affection†is comprehended in “loss of",,,
consortiumâ€, hence, there is no justification to award compensation towards “loss of love and affection†as a separate head.",,,
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 the three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Co. Ltd.. It is thus now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded under,,,
the head “loss of love and affectionâ€.,,,
35. The word “consortium†has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Edn. The Black’s Law Dictionary also, simultaneously, notices the filial",,,
consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium in the 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.â€",,,
36. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. as well as United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the 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 para 87 of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., “consortium†to all the three claimants",,,
was thus awarded. …,,,
37. The 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. 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 Co. Ltd. has categorically laid down that apart from spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable.",,,
We feel ourselves bound by the above judgment of the 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 the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no justification for award of compensation under",,,
separate head “loss of love and affectionâ€. The appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed insofar as the award of compensation under the head “loss of,,,
love and affectionâ€.,,,
34. The Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the argument of the appellant that the judgment passed in the case oPf ranay Sethi (Supra),,,
only referred to spousal consortium and no other consortium was referred and hence, there was no justification for allowing parental consortium and filial",,,
consortium. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the judgment passed in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) cannot be read to mean that it laid down the,,,
proposition that consortium is payable only to the wife. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter referred to the judgment passed in the case of Satinder,,,
Kaur (Supra) and observed that it has been categorically laid down that apart from spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium are payable",,,
and the argument of the appellant that amount of consortium was not to be awarded to each of the claimants, was specifically rejected.",,,
35. Upon perusal of the aforesaid judgment in the case of “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Somwati†(Supra) ,this Court finds that it has been clearly",,,
laid down that there can be no separate head for ""loss of love and affectionâ€, however, compensation under different categories i.e. filial consortium, parental",,,
consortium and spousal consortium is payable to each claimant separately.,,,
36. Similar view has been taken in the other judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants. In the case of Shiv Kumar v. Gainda Lal, (2022)",,,
14 SCC 342 decided on 21st October 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the claimantsâ€"husband and the minor son, would be entitled to Rs 40,000",,,
each towards loss of consortium or loss of love and affection. In the case of Sarup Singh v. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 1 SCC 159",,,
decided on 17th October 2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ""loss of consortium"" ought to have been awarded @40,000/- per head and further in",,,
case of accident of the year 2012, the interest was awarded @7.5% per annum. In the judgement passed in the case reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1723",,,
(Harpreet Kaur and Others Vs. Mohinder Yadav and others) it has been held that each child and mother is entitled to Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of",,,
consortium'. In the judgement passed in the case reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 780 (Rahul Ganpatrao Sable Vs. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead),,,
through Lrs. And others) paragraph 33, it has been held that “loss of consortium†has to be awarded to each dependant separately.",,,
37. So far as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2410-2412 of 2023 decided on 27th March 2023 (Shri Ram,,,
General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh Rawat and Other)s as relied upon by the learned counsel for the insurance company is concerned, the same",,,
does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. In Bhagat Singh Rawat (Supra) an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid for loss of love and affection",,,
over and above Rs. 40,000/- on account of loss of consortium. In this background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the total amount has to be assigned",,,
Sl.
No.",Head,"Awarded by
Ld. Tribunal","Entitlement of Claimants under
law
1.,"Monthly
Income","Rs. 6,000/- per
month","Rs. 6,000/- per month
2.,"Future Prospect  (age of deceased
36 years)",Not awarded,"40% i.e., Rs. 2400/-
3.,"Annual
Income","Rs. 72,000/-","Rs. 1,00,800/- (after accounting for
future prospect)
4.,"Deduction towards personal
expenses (No. of dependents
are 4)",¼,¼
5.,"Multiplier (age
of              Â
the deceased  was
36 years)",16,15
6.,"Amount (after calculation  of
deduction  and
multiplier)","8,64,000","11,34,000
7.,"Funeral
Expenses","Rs. 75,000/-","Rs. 15,000/-
8.,Loss of estate,"Not
considered","Rs. 15,000/-
9.,Loss  of Consortium,"Rs. 75,000/-","Rs. 40,000/- X 4 = Rs. 1,60,000/-
10.,"Total compensation
Awarded","Rs. 10,14,000/-","Rs. 13,24,000/- (6+7+8+9)
11.,Interest,"8%  from  the
date of filling till  Â
Judgment
only         Â
i.e., (from 30.09.2013Â Â
to
30.01.2016)","8%  per  annum  from Â
the  date  of filling of the case before
tribunal till the date of actualÂ
payment. Since certain payment hasÂ
been made to the  claimant Â
as  disclosed  by  the
claimants,  the  interest Â
would  be payable on reducingÂ
balance to be calculated in accordance
with law.
Amount received by claimants till date
1. Ad â€" interim Compensation of Rs.
50,000/- vide Cheque No. 069511
dt. 07.12.2015.
2. Interim    Compensation   Â
of    Rs. 11,00,000/-   Â
vide    Cheque    No.
118948 dt. 05.12.2022 against the
Order  passed  by Â
Hon’ble  High Court dt. 11.04.2022.
42. The statutory amount deposited before this Court is directed to be remitted to the court concerned.,,,
43. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.,,,
44. Pending Interlocutory application, if any, is closed.",,,
