SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 343

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ALKA SARIN, J.
Ramphal and Another - Appellants
Versus
Krishan Kumar and Others - Respondents
FAO No.2439 of 2008
Decided on: 12-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Jagdeep S. Virk, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Brothers of a deceased individual can claim compensation under conventional heads and loss of consortium even if they are not financially dependent on the deceased.

Headnote:

MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS - COMPENSATION FOR DEPENDENTS - The court held that while the claimant-appellants, being the deceased's brothers, were not dependents due to their own earnings, they were entitled to compensation under conventional heads and loss of filial consortium as per the precedent set in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi.

Fact of the Case:

The claimant-appellants challenged the dismissal of their claim petition for compensation following the death of their unmarried brother, Subhash, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which ruled they were not dependents due to their marital status and earnings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that although the claimant-appellants were not dependents, they were entitled to compensation under conventional heads and loss of filial consortium based on established legal principles.

Issues: Whether the claimant-appellants, as brothers of the deceased, were entitled to compensation despite not being dependents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal precedent from Pranay Sethi, allowing compensation for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of filial consortium, despite the lack of dependency.

Result: The appeal was allowed, modifying the Tribunal's award to grant a total compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- with interest.

JUDGMENT :

ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants challenging the award dated 24.03.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellants on account of death of their brother, namely, Subhash @ Tasa (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), was dismissed.

2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

3. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal only on the ground that the claimant-appellants are the real brothers of the deceased, who was unmarried and 35 years of age. It has been held by the Tribunal that the claimant-appellants are both married and have their own children and hence, they could not be held to be dependent on the deceased and, as such, they are not entitled to claim any compensation. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would further contend that even if the brothers were not entitled to compensation on account of death of the deceased, as no dependency could be proved, however, they would be entitled to compensation under the conventional heads as well as under the head of loss of consortium in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680.

4. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has contended that since the claimant-appellants were not dependent upon the deceased hence no amount of compensation is payable to them.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the present case the claimant-appellants are the real brothers of the deceased. Though they cannot be held to be dependent on the deceased as it has come in evidence that they are both earning, however, they would be entitled to compensation under the conventional heads i.e. loss of estate [Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15000+20%)] and funeral expenses [Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15000+20%)] and under the head loss of filial consortium [Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20%)] keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

7. Accordingly, the claimant-appellants are granted the following compensation :

Sr. No.

Heads

Compensation Awarded

1

Loss of estate

Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15000+20%)

2

Funeral expenses

Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15000+20%)

3

Loss of Filial Consortium

Rs.96,000/- (48,000 x 2)

 

Total Compensation

Rs.1,32,000/-

8. The amount of compensation shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.

9. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

Appeal allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top