RAJESH & OTHERSversusRAJBIR SINGH & OTHERS

                      [2013] 5 S.C.R. 961


                      RAJESH & OTHERS                                A
                                v.
                  RAJBIR SINGH & OTHERS
                (Civil Appeal No. 3860 of 2013)
                        APRIL 12, 2013
                                                                     B
     [G.S. SINGHVI, KURIAN JOSEPH AND SHARAD
                 ARVIND BOBDE, JJ.]

       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Fatal accident -
  Compensation - Grant of - Addition to actual income of the C
  deceased towards future prospects - Norms laid down with
  regard to salaried persons in Sar/a Verma case - Further
  explained in Santosh Devi case, and also. made applicable
· to self-employed and persons on fixed wages - Clarification
  now given in regard to self-employed and persons on fixed D
  wages with reference to their age - Held: In case the deceased
  victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50%
  to the actualincome of the deceased while computing future
  prospects - Addition should be 30% in case the deceased
  was in the age group of 40 to 50 years - Since in case of those E
  self-employed or on fixed wages, there is normally no age of
  superannuation, it will only be just and equitable to provide
  an addition of 15% in the case where the victim was between
  the age group of 50 to 60 years - There should normally be
  no addition thereafter.                                         F
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 166 - Fatal accident -
 Grant of compensation - Loss of consortium to the spouse -
 Held: The loss of companionship, love, care and protection,
 etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated
 appropriately - On facts, it would only be just and reasonable      G
 that the courts award at least Rs. 1 /akh for loss of consortium.

    Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 166 - Fatal accident -
 Grant of compensation - 'Funeral Expenses' - Held:
                         961                                         H
    962     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 5 S.C.R.


A  Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of
  compensation under the head 'Funeral Expenses' - 'Price
   Index' has gone up in that regard also - On facts, it will be
  just, fair and equitable, under the head of 'Funeral Expenses',
  in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher
B expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs. 25, 0001.
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 166 - Fatal accident -
  Deceased aged 33 years - Earning salary of Rs. 9, 5201- per
  month - Compensation - Grant of - Held: 50% salary added
C as future prospects-114th deducted as personal expenses of
  the deceased - Multiplier of 16 applied - Rs. 1 lakh awarded
  towards loss of consortium and further Rs. 1 /akh towards loss
  of care and guidance for minor children - Rs. 25, ODO/-
  awarded towards funeral expenses - Total compensation
  awarded amounting to Rs.22,81,3201-.
D
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Just compensation
  - Meaning of - Held: 'Just Compensation' is adequate
  compensation which is fair and equitable, on the faqts and
  circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered
E as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by
  applying the well-settled principles relating to award of
  compensation.

        Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Compensation -
F Duty of the Court - To fix just compensation, i"espective of
  the claim - Held: The Court should not succumb to niceties
  or technicalities, in matters relating to compensation - Attempt
  of the Court should be to equate, as far as possible, the
  misery on account of the accident with the compensation so
  that the injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries
G of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned
  by the victim - Tribunal/Court has a duty, i"espective of the
  claims made in the Application, if any, to properly award a
  just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation, if
  necessary, ignoring the claim made in the application for
H compensation.                 ·
             RAJESH v. RAJBIR SINGH                     963

                                                                A
    Words and Phrases -'Consortium' - Meaning of.

    A 33 year old person died in an accident. The
deceased was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.6,926/-. His
dependants claimed compensation before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal ~educted          B
1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 16
and further awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards all
other conventional heads and the compensation was
rounded off to Rs.8,96,500/- with interest@ 7.5% from the
date of the filing of the petition.                             c
    The High Court, following Sarla Verma case,. modified
the award holding that only 1/4th should have been
deducted from the income. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was
also awarded for loss of consortium in addition to
Rs.10,000/- already granted by the Tribunal on other            D
conventional heads and, thus, it was held that the total
compensation would be Rs.10,17,000/- with interest@
7.5%. Still not satisfied, the widow and the children of the
deceased filed appeal before this Court.
                                                                E
    Allowing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1.1. The expression 'just compensation' has
been explained in Sar/a Verma's case, holding that the
compensation awarded by a Tribunal does not become
                                                                F
just compensation merely because the Tribunal
considered it to be just. 'Just Compensation' is adequate
compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts
and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss
suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can
do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to      G
award of compensation. [Para 7] [969-G-H; 970-A-B]
     1.2. The duty of the Court is to fix a just compensation
and it has now become settled law that the Court should
not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters.     H
    964     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013) 5 S.C.R.


A Attempt of the Court should be to equate, as far as
  possible, the misery on account of the accident with the
  compensation so that the injured/the dependants should
  not face the vagaries of life on account of the
  discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. [Para
B 15] [97 4-C-D]
       1.3. The Court should award proper compensation
  irrespective of the claim and, if required, even in excess
  of the claim. The Tribunal/Court has a duty, irrespective
C of the claims made in the Application, if any, to properly
  award a just, equitable, fair and reasonable
  compensation, if necessary, ignoring the claim made in
  the application for compensation. [Paras 16, 19] [974-D-
  E; 975-G]
D       Sar/a Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport
    Corporation and another (2009) 6 sec 121: 2009 (5) SCR
    1098; Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Limited
    and others (2012) 6 SCC 421: 2012 (3) SCR 1178 -
    explained.
E
       Nagappa vs. Gurudaya/ Singh and Others AIR 2003 SC
  674: 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 499; Oriental Insurance Company
  Limited vs. Mohd. Nasir and another AIR 2009 SC 1219:
  2009 (1) SCR 14 and Ningamma and another vs. United
  Indian Insurance Company Limited (2009) 13 SCC 710:
F 2009 (8) SCR 683 - relied on.
      2.1. In Sar/a Verma's case, after surveying almost all
  the previous decisions, the Supreme Court almost
  standardized the norms for the assessment of damages
G in Motor Accident Claims. It held that "where the
  deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years,
  an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary
  income of the deceased towards future prospects",
  should be adopted. "The addition should be only 30% if
H the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should
             RAJESH v. RAJBIR SINGH                   965


be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than A
50 years." "Where the deceased was self-employed or
was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual
increments etc.), the courts, will usually take only the
actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom
should be made only in rare and exceptional cases B
involving special circumstances." [Paras 7, 8] [970-B, D-
E, F-G]
     2.2. In a recent decision in Santosh Devi, Sar/a
Verma's case was further explained with regard to the
settled norms and it was held that it cannot be said that C
"in Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay
down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the
income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid
fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that
a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed D
wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total
income over a period of time and if he/she becomes
victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be
applied for calculating the amount of compensation."
[Paras 9, 10] [970-G-H; 792-G-H, 973-A]                     E
     3.1. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case actually
intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried
persons as laid in Sar/a Verma's case and to make it
applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed F
wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those
groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference
to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed
or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim
was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% G
to the actual income of the deceased while computing
future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income
should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition
should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age
group of 40 to 50 years. [Para 11] [973-B-D]
                                                              H
     966     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A     3.2. In Sar/a Verma's case, it has been stated that in
  the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no
  addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of
  those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is
  normally no age of superannuation, it will only be just and
B equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where
  the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so
  as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and
  reasonable. There shall normally be no addition
  thereafter. [Para 12[[973-D-F]
c        4.1. There is a need to revisit the practice of awarding
     compensation under conventional heads: loss of
     consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance
     to children and funeral expenses. The sum of Rs.2,500/-
     to Rs.10,000/- in those heads was fixed several decades
D    ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs
     to be increased. In Sar/a Verma's case, it was held that
     compensation for loss of consortium should be in the
     range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. In legal parlance,
     'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company,
E    care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection
     and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-
     pecuniary head of damages has not been properly
     understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship,
     love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to
F    get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept
     of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one
     of the major heads of award of compensation in other
     parts of the world more particularly in the United States
     of America, Australia, etc. Engiish Courts have also
.G   recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation
     even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss
     of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to
     compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort,
     solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection,
H    care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike
             RAJESH v. RAJBIR SiNGH                    967

the compensation awarded in other countries and other         A
jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise
adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would
not be proper to award a major amount under this head.
Hence, it would only be just and reasonable that the
courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of             B
consortium. [Para 20] [976-B-G]
     4.2. The Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard
to award of compensation under the head 'Funeral
Expenses'. The 'Price Index', it is a fact has gone up in     C
that regard also. The head 'Funeral Expenses' does not
mean the fee paid in the crematorium or fee paid for the
use of space in the cemetery. There are many other
expenses in connection with funeral and, if the deceased
is follower of any particular religion, there are several
religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in      D
a family. All those are quite expensive. Therefore, it will
be just, fair and equitable, under the head ·Of 'Funeral
Expenses', in the absence of evidence to the contrary for
higher expenses, to award at least an amount of
Rs.25,000/. [Para 21] [976-H; 977-A-C]                        E

     5. In the instant case.• the appellants have produced
before this Court salary certificate of the deceased which
shows that after the revision of the salary by the Sixth
Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006, the               F
deceased had a monthly salary of Rs.9,520/-. Applying
the principles in Sar/a Verma's case as explained in
Santosh Devi's case, and in the instant case, the
compensation is re-assessed at Rs.22,81,320/-. The
amount will carry interest @ 7.5% as awarded by the           G
Tribunal from the date of the filing of the petition till
realization. [Paras 22, 23) [977-D, E; 978-C-D]
                    Case Law Reference:
    2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 499 relied on          Para 3, 13     H
    968       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 5 S.C.R.

A         2009 (5) SCR 1098            explained         Paras 5,7,
                                                         9,11,12,
                                                         20,22
          2012 (3) SCR 1178            explained         Para 9, 11,
                                                              20
B
          2009 (1) SCR 14              relied on         Para 14
          2009 (8) SCR 683             relied on         Para 14

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
c 3860 of 2013.
        From the Judgment & Order dated 29.01.201 O of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 2816 of
    2009.
D         Gagan Gupta for the Appellants.

          S. Gowthaman for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E         KURIAN , J. 1. Leave granted.

         2. Compensation which appears to it to be just, has to be
    assessed and awarded by the Claims Tribunal set up under
    Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'),
F   on an applicatkm under Section 166 of the Act.

       3. In Nagappa vs. Guruaayal Singh and Others\ it has
  been held by this Court that the main guiding principle for
  determining the compensation is that it must be just. It has also
  been held that the award must be reasonable. Some of the
G relevant parameters in that regard arise for consideration in this
  case.

          4. Petitioners are the widow (Smt. Rajesh) and three mino~

H 1. AIR 2003 SC 674
         RAJESH v. RAJBIR SINGH [KURIAN, J.]                  969


children of late Bijender Singh-deceased victim. At the time of       A
accident, the deceased was around 33 years. The fatal accident
was on 05.10.2007. The deceased was working as clerk in a
school under the education department in the State of Haryana.
The salary certificate, Exhibit-P3, filed along with Claim Petition
filed on 26.11.2007, showed that the deceased was drawing             B
a monthly salary of Rs.6,926/-. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd
towards personal expenses, applied multiplier-of 16 and further
awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards all other
conventional heads and the compensation was rounded off to
Rs.8,96,500/- with interest@ 7.5% from the date of the filing         c
of the petition. It was also held that 60% of the compensation
awarded would go to the widow and the remaining 40% to be
equally shared by the minor children and mother. The share of
the minor children was directed to be deposited in their name
in a nationalized bank till they attained majority.                   D
    5. Dissatisfied, the Claim Petitioners except the mother
approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The mother
was made a proforma respondent. High Court, following Sar/a
Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another2, modified the award holding that only 1/4th should           E
have been deducted from the income. An amount of Rs.10,000/
- was also awarded for loss of consortium in addition to
Rs.10,000/- already granted by the Tribunal on other
conventional heads and, thus, it was held that the total
compensation would be Rs.10,17,000/-with interest@ 7.5%.              F

    6. Still not satisfied, the widow and the children have
approached this Court.

     7. The expression 'just compensation' has been explained
in Sar/a Verma's case (supra), holding that the compensation          G
awarded by a Tribunal does not become just compensation
merely because the Tribunal considered it to be just. 'Just
Compensation' is adequate compensation which is fair and

2.   (2009) s sec 121.                                                H
    970       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make
  good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money
  can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to
  award of compensation. After surveying almost all the previous
  decisions, the Court almost standardized the norms for the
B assessment of damages in Motor Accident Claims.

          8. At paragraph 24, it has been held as follows: -

          "24. In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the
          income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was
c         increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income
          was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables
          and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule
          of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual
          salary income of the deceased towards future prospects,
D         where the deceased had a permanent job and was below
          40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable
          range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as 'actual
          salary less tax'). The addition should be only 30% if the
          age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should
E         be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than
          50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different
          percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the
          addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or
          different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the
F         deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary
          (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will
          usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A
          departure therefrom should be made only in rare and
          exceptional cases involving special circumstances:
G       9. In .a recent decision, in Santosh Devi vs. National
    Insurance Company Limited and others3, authored by one of
    us (G. S. Singhvi, J.), Sar/a Venna's case (supra) has further
    been explained with regard to the settled norms. It has been
    held in Paragraph 11 as follows:
H 3, c2012) a sec 421.
       RAJESH v. RAJBIR SINGH [KURIAN, J.]                  971


    "11. We have considered the respective arguments.               A
    Although, the legal jurisprudence developed in the country
    in last five decades is somewhat precedent-centric, the
    judgments which have bearing on socio-economic
    conditions of the citizens and issues relating to
    compensation payable to the victims of motor accidents,         B
    those who are deprived of their land and similar matters
    needs to be frequently revisited keeping in view the fast-
    changing societal values, the effect of globalisation on the
    economy of the nation and their impact on the life of the
    people."
                                                                    c
     10. Consequently, it has been held at Paragraphs 14 to
18, as follows:-

    "14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale
    for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment        o
    in Sarla Verma's case that where the deceased was self-
    employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for
    annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the
    actual income at the time· of death and a departure from
    this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional           E
    cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will
    be nave to say that the wages or total emoluments/income
    of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on
    a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc.,
    would remain the same throughout his life.
                                                                    F
    15. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across
    the board. It does not make any distinction between rich
    and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices
    which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the
    rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who          G
    get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected
    people. Therefore, they put in extra efforts to generate
    additional income necessary for sustaining their families.

    16. The salaries of those employed under the Central and        H
     972       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013) 5 S.C.R.


A:         State Governments and their agencies/ instrumentalities
           have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion
           against the rising prices and provisions have been made
           for providing security to the families of the deceased
           employees. The salaries of those employed in private
B          sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two
           decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of
           Class IV employee of the Government would be in five
           figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons
           of service will cross the figure of rupees one lakh.
c          17. Although, the wages/income of those employed in
           unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding
           increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the
           salaries of the Government employees and those
           ernployed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that
D          there has been incremental enhancement in the income of
           those who are self-employed and even those engaged on
           daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can
           take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the
           challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling
E          in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their
           labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example
           of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the
           cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up,
           it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour.
F          So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled
           labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc.

           18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the
           observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of
           Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay
G          down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the
           income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid
           fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a
           person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages
           will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over
H
        RAJESH v. RAJBIR SINGH [KURIAN, J.]                 973


    a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident       A
    then the same formula deserves to be applied for
    calculating the amount of compensation."

     11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra)
actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried   9
persons as laid in Sar/a Verrna's case (supra) and to make it
applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed
wages, it is clarified that the increai;e in the case of those
groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the
age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons
with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40         C
years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income
of the deceased while computing future. prospects. Needless
to say that the actual income should be income after paying the
tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was
in the age group of 40 to 50 years.                                 D

     12. In Sar/a Verrna's case (supra), it has been stated that
in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition.
Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed
or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of                E
superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and
equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the
victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 y.ears so as to
make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable.
There shall normally be no addition thereafter.                     F

     13. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award
compensation in excess of what is claimed in the Application
under Section 166 ,of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another
issue arising for consideration in this case. At Paragraph 10
of Nagappa's case (supra), it was held as follows:-                 G

     "10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims
     Tribunal to "make an award determining the amount of
     compensation which appears to it to be just". Therefore,
     only requirement for determining the compensation is that      H
    974       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 5 S.C.R.

A         it must be 'just'. There is no other limitation or restriction
          on its power for awarding just compensation."
         14. The principle was followed in the later decisions in
    Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Mohd. Nasir and
8   another4 and in Ningamma and another vs. United Indian
    Insurance Company Limited5.

        15. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions
  is with regard to the duty of the Court to fix a just compensation
  and it has now become settled law that the Court should not
C succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt
  of the Court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery
  on account of the accident with the compensation so that the
  injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on
  account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the
D victim.
      16. There is another reason wlly the Court should award
  proper compensation irrespective of the claim and, if required,
  even in excess of the claim. After the amendment of the Act by
E Act No. 54 of 1994 with effect frollJ 14.11.1994, the Report on
  motor vehicle accident prepared- by the police officer and
  forwarded to the Claims Tribunal under sub-Section (6) of
  Section 158 has to be treated as an Application for
  Compensation. Section 158 (6) oLthe Act reads as follows:
F         "158. Production of certain certificates, licence and
          permit in certain cases.-
          (1) to (5) xxx xxx xxx

          (6) As soon as any information regarding any accident
G         involving death or bodily injtJry to any person is recorded
          or report under this section is completed by a police officer,
          the officer-in-charge of the police station shall forward a
  4.   AIR 2009 SC 1219.
H 5.   (2009) 13 sec 110.
       RAJESH v. RAJBIR SINGH [KURIAN, J.]                 975


    copy of the same within thirty days from the date of A
    recording of information or, as the case may be, on
    completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having
    jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer,
    and, where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall
    also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the B
    same to such Claims Tribunal and insurer."

    17. Section 166 (4) of the Act reads as follows: -

    "166(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of
    accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section C
    158 as an application for compensation under this Act."

     18. Prior to the amendment in 1994, it was left to the
discretion of the Tribunal as to whether the report be treated
as an application or not. The pre-amended position under sub- D
Section (4) of Section 166 of the Act, read as under:

    "(4) Where a police officer has filed a copy of the report
    regarding an accident to a Claims Tribunal under this Act,
    the Claims Tribunal may, if it thinks it necessary so to do,
    treat the report as if it were an application for E
    compensation under this Act."

     19. In a report on accident, there is no question of any
reference to any claim for damages, different heads of
damages or such other details. It is the duty of the Tribunal to F
build on that report and award just, equitable, fair and
reasonable compensation with reference to the settled principles
on assessment of damages. Thus, on that ground also we hold
that the Tribunal/Court has a duty, irrespective of the claims
made in the Application, if any, to properly award a just, · G
equitable, fair and reasonable compensation, if necessary,
ignoring the claim made in the application for compensation.

     20. The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue
is a precedent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly
                                                                   H




                           -· ---· -      ..
                                       -.~ -.-....
    976     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic
  issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent,
  can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as
  observed in Santhosh Devi (supra). We may therefore, revisit
  the practice of awarding compensation under conventional
B heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and
  guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that
  the sum of Rs.2,500/- to Rs.10,000/- in those heads was fixed
  several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the
  same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma's case (supra),
c it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be
  in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. In legal parlance,
  'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care,
  help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual
  relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of
  damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The
D loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the
  spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately.
  The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium
  is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other
  parts of the world more particularly in the United States of
E America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also recognized
  the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the
  period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the
  courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of
  spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society,
F assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the
  future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other
  countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are
  otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it
  would not be proper to award a major amount under this head.
G Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and
   reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for
   loss of consortium.

        21. We may also take judicial notice of the fact that the
H   Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of
         RAJESH v. RAJBIR SINGH [KURIAN, J.]               977


compensation under the head 'Funeral Expenses'. The 'Price A
Index', it is a fact has gone up in that regard also. The head
'Funeral Expenses' does not mean the fee paid in the
crematorium or fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery.
There are many other expenses in connection with funeral and,
if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are B
several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death
in a family. All those are quite expensive. Therefore, we are of
the view that it wiil be just, fair and equitable, under the head of
'Funeral Expenses', in the absence of evidence to the contrary
for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs.25,000/ c


      22. Petitioners have produced before this Court Annexure-
P4 salary certificate of the deceased Bijender Singh which
shows that after the revision of the salary by the Sixth Pay
Commission with effect from 01.01.2006, the deceased had a D
monthly salary of Rs.9,520/-. It is submitted that since the Sixth
Pay Commission benefits were announced only subsequently
making it to operate retrospectively from 01.01.2006, the salary
certificate could not be produced before the Tribunal or the High
Court. Applying the principles in Sarla Verma's case (supra) E
as explained in Santosh Devi's case, and in the instant case,
the compensation has to be re-assessed as follows:

  SI.    HEADS                          CALCULATION
         No.                                                      F
  (i)    Salary                      Rs.9,520.00 per month.

  (ii)   50% of (i) above to be      [Rs.9,520.00 + Rs.4,760.
         added as future             00]=                     .
         prospects=                  Rs.14,280.00 per montt G

  (iii) 1/4th of (ii) deducted as    [Rs.14,280.00 -
        personal expenses of the     Rs.3,570.00]=
        deceased=                    Rs.10,710.00 per montt
                                                                  H
    978       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A     (iv} Compensation after           [Rs.10,710.00 x 12 x 16]
           multiplier of 16 is applied= =Rs.20,56,320.00

      (v}    Loss of consortium =         Rs.1,00,000.00

B     (vi}   Loss of care and            Rs.1,00,000.00
             guidance for minor
             children=

      (vii} Funeral expenses =            Rs.25,000.00
c            TOTAL COMPENSATION
             AWARDED=           Rs.22 181 1320.00

      23. The amount will carry interest@ 7.5% as awarded by
  the Tribunal from the date of the filing of the petition, viz.,
D 26.11.2007 till realization.
       24. In the result, the Appeal is allowed, the impugned
  Judgment as also the Award of the Tribunal are set aside. The
  claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.
E 22,81,320/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from 26.11.2007 till
  realization. The 3rd Respondent-Insurance Company is
  directed to pay the 50% of the enhanced compensation by
  getting prepared a demand draft in her name which shall be
  delivered at the address given by her in the Claim Petition
  within three months. Demand drafts for the balance amount in
F equal proportion, after deducting the amount, if any, already
  paid, shall be prepared in the name of the three minor children
  and the mother and the same shall also be delivered to the
  parties at the respective addresses given in the Claim Petition
  within three months. The amounts in the share of the minor
G children shall be deposited in the nationalized bank where the
  amounts as awarded by the Tribunal have already been
  deposited, till they attain majority.
          25. There is no order as to costs.
H B.B.B.                                         Appeal allowed.