Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs Annapureddy Gurava Reddi and Others

Ramanujulu Naidu, J.—This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge), Khammam in MACT. O.P. No. 73 of 1981 on its file awarding compensation to the Respondents in a sum of Rs. 18,000/- u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

On 11.6.1981 at about 8.00 a.m. the bus bearing No. AAZ 1975 belonging to the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation was proceeding to Khammam from Kothagudem. On its way, in front of the house of one Udumula Venkateswara Reddy, it dashed against a boy then aged about nine years and ran over him causing multiple grievous injuries to him. Unfortunately, the victim succumbed to the injuries on the same day in the Government Civil Hospital, Kothagudem. The parents of the deceased boy, the Respondents herein, claimed compensation in a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The Tribunal held that on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus the accident took place. A sum of Rs. 18,000/- by way of compensation was awarded to the Respondent.

Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal the above appeal was preferred by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation.

Mr. C. Ananda Rao, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Corporation submits that the deceased boy ran across the road and courted his death and that the driver of the bus was not at fault. I however find it difficult to accede to the submission of Mr. C. Ananda Rao. PW 2 who was standing nearby the scene of accident deposed that on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus the deceased boy was run over after he was dashed against. Nothing tangible was elicited in his cross-examination so as to discredit his testimony. His evidence satisfactorily establishes contributory negligence of the driver incharge of the bus of the Corporation at the relevant time.

Mr. C. Ananda Rao submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has no rational basis and that usually in the case of death of a child aged below ten years Courts award compensation ranging from Rs. 5,000/ to Rs. 8,000/-. Reliance is placed upon the decision in Euclides Joao Rodrigues v. Custodio Dias 1983 A.C.J. 478 (Bombay), wherein the parents of the deceased boy aged five years knocked down to death by a truck were awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. Adverting to the question of quantum of compensation to be awarded the learned Judge observed:

No evidence has been led by the parties for this purpose and as such, the Court has to determine it on basis of the facts that are before it, namely that the unfortunate child was only five years old at the time of the accident. One does not know whether the boy was a bright child and what he would have done in life. The only consideration, therefore, to be taken is the shock and the agony the Appellants must have felt with the loss of their son.

It may thus be noted that in the above case compensation was awarded to the parents of the deceased boy towards shock and agony undergone by them. For want of any material placed before the learned Judge no compensation towards deprivation of reasonable pecuniary benefits to the parents of the deceased was awarded.

In C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair 1970 A.C.J. 110 (S.C.), a boy aged eight years was hit by a bus on 26.2.1956. As a result of the accident the boy sustained severe multiple injuries. He became unconscious immediately after the accident and succumbed to the injuries on the morning of 28.2.1956. The parents of the deceased boy claimed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- under Sections 1-A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act. The trial Court computed the compensation u/s 1-A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act at Rs. 5,000/-. On appeal the High Court determined the damages u/s 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act at Rs 5,000/- and u/s 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act at Rs. 1,000/-. The parents of the deceased boy dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation appealed to the Supreme Court. Dismissing the appeal preferred by the deceased-boy''s parents, their Lordships observed:

...It is seen that the deceased child was only 8 years old at the time of his death. How he would have turned out in life later is at best a guess. But there was a reasonable probability of his becoming a successful man in life as he was z bright boy in the school and his parents could have afforded him a good education. It is not likely that he would have given any financial assistance to his parents till he was at least 20 years old. As seen from the evidence on record, his father was a substantial person. He was in business and his business was a prosperous one. As things stood he needed no assistance from his son. There is no material on record to find out as to how old were the parents of the deceased at the time of his death- Nor is there any evidence about their state of health. On the basis of the evidence on record, we are unable to come to the conclusion that the damages ordered by the High Court are inadequate.

It may be thus noted that having regard to the various circumstances referred to by their Lordships of the Supreme Court the amount of compensation in a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was held to be inadequate. In fact their Lordships earlier observed:

As a general rule parents are entitled to recover the present cash value of the prospective service of the deceased minor child. In addition they may receive compensation for loss of pecuniary benefits reasonably to be expected after the child attains majority.

The mode of assessment of damages payable to his or her parents is difficult in the case of a death of a child and the Court must take care to exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is inevitable. In order to succeed it is necessary for the parents to establish that they lost a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage.

In Mangaldas Mohanlal Patel and Another Vs. Union of India and Another, , a young boy aged 13 years studying in 7th standard in a High School was knocked down to death by a military motor truck while he was proceeding on a cycle. The parents of the deceased claimed compensation in a sum of Rs. 42,000/- u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 21,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation the parents of the deceased boy appealed to the High Court of Gujarat. Adverting to the claim their Lordship observed:

Now, in such cases, where a young boy who is studying in school and who is not earning anything, it is difficult to evaluate his future earning capacity and loss to the Appellants. In the present case, we have to assess the damages of a chance in the sense whether deceased would have given any amount to his parents in view of the fact that the deceased was studying in school and was not earning at the time of the accident. When the Court has to assess damages, whether in personal injury claims or, in claims under the Fatal Accidents Act, it often has, in effect, to value a chance. The Court has to assess the value of lost dependency. One does not know what might have happened had he not been killed; but the value of the prospect, chance or probability or support can be estimated by taking all significant factors into account. The Court has to do its best to evaluate all the chances, large or small, favourable or unfavourable. In evaluating such chance, we have to keep in it mind issue or sole issue whether that chance or probability was substantial. If it was substantial, it must be evaluated. If it was a mere probability, it must be ignored. It is true that in real life, chances rarely are, or, can be, estimated on mathematical terms.

Adverting to the evidence let in, in support of the additional claim, their Lordships observed that the deceased boy was the only child of the parents; that the deceased was aged 13 years at the time of his death, that he was studying in 7th standard in a High School, that he was clever, that he was assigned third rank when he passed sixth standard examination, that his health was very sound, that his ambition was to become a doctor, that he secured 65 per cent marks in sixth standard, that he had also passed some examinations in Hindi and that he was taking part in sports and other activities. Relying upon the evidence let in by the parents of the deceased their Lordships observed that a pessimistic view should not be taken and that a positive approach of life and optimistic view would be just and proper.

In the instant case PW 1, the father of the deceased boy, claimed that the deceased boy was studying in fourth class in a school and that he was very brilliant. No certificate whatsoever was filed to substantiate the plea that the deceased boy was studying in a school. In cross-examination of PW 1 it was suggested to him that the deceased boy was not studying in any school. The Tribunal was therefore left with no sufficient data as to the loss of reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit to the parents of the deceased due to untimely death of the deceased boy. That the deceased boy was hale and healthy as claimed by PW 1 was not doubted in cross-examination. As already stated the deceased boy was aged nine years at the time of his death. Even if he had no schooling, he would have ended up as a craftsman or an artisan or an agricultural labourer after attainment of majority of 21 years and would have been of financial support to his parents. In other words twelve years after the date of his death he would have been of assistance to his parents. The father of the deceased was forty years while the mother was thirty years at the time of his death. The average span of life of a human being is sixty years. The deceased would have therefore supported his father for a period of eight years and his mother for a period of eighteen years after attaining majority. He would have earned at least Rs. 10 a day and would have contributed one-fourth of his wages to his parents. The loss of dependency of the parents of the deceased can be estimated at Rs. 9000- p.a. For eighteen years the loss would be to a tune of Rs. 16,200/-. A sum of Rs. 1,800/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the parents would be reasonable. Thus the total amount of compensation payable to the parents is not excessive. The appeal is thus devoid of merits and is dismissed but without costs.