UNION OF INDIA Vs. POOJA.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India and others are in appeal against the award dtd. 15/11/2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu ( Tribunal ) in claim petition titled Pooja and others Vs Union of India and others, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.17,61,550.00 in favour of the respondents/claimants. The award impugned has been challenged inter alia on the following grounds:

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it has been noticed that the deceased was 28 years old at the time of accident as is revealed by the post-mortem report and was survived by wife, Pooja, mother, Krishna and two minor sons Harsh and Aashish. The deceased was casual employee working as Safai Karamchari and receiving monthly salary of Rs.4500.00 and he is, therefore, taken to be a self employed person. Since the age of the deceased was less than 40 years and, therefore, there has to be addition @ 40% of the established income for the purposes of computation of loss of dependence. Similarly, as authoritatively laid in the case of Pranay Sethi, the sum payable under conventional heads like loss of estates, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000.00, Rs.40,000.00 and Rs.15,000.00 respectively. But going by the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported as 2018(9)JT 195, the consortium could be of three types:

(3.) A sum of Rs.40,000.00 payable on account of loss of consortium as laid down in case of Pranay Sethi, is thus, payable to each of the aforesaid categories. That being the position in the instant case, the respondent No.1 would be entitled to Rs.40,000.00on account of spousal consortium, respondent No.2, the mother, would be entitled to filial consortium to the tune of Rs.40,000.00 and two minor sons i.e. respondent No.3 and 4, would also be entitled to Rs.40,000.00 each on account of parental consortium. The argument was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that Pranay Sethi's judgment is a constitution bench judgment and therefore, the respondents/claimants are entitled to only Rs.40,000.00 on account of consortium and the later judgment being the judgment of smaller bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (two judge bench judgment ) cannot be said to have been laid down a correct law and is otherwise not binding in the face of constitution bench judgment in case of Pranay Sethi.