Bhima and Another vs Pranaya and Others

R.K. Vijayvargiya, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against an award dated 24-6-73 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in claim Case No. 41 of 1970.

The Appellants are respectively the father and the mother of the deceased Mukund who died as a result of an accident by car No. M.H.J. 7695 belonging to the ResRs-B0873-2011pondent No. 1 and being, driven at the time of accident by the Respondent No. 2. According to the Appellants Mukund had gone alongwith his maternal aunt from his village Pidgemor towards Indore and when he was sitting on the footpath on the right side of the road chewing sugarcane, car No. 7695 M.H.J, dashed against him as a result of which he died instantaneously. The car was being driven by the Respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently. The claimants have stated that the deceased was their eldest son about 12 years of age and was an earning member of the family. He was also rendering nursing services to his blind mother, the claimant No. 2. The claimants claimed Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation on account of the death of their son. The Respondents contested the claim.

The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the car driver, the Respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the Respondents were liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Court has awarded Rs. 4,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by this award the claimants have filed this appeal. Their grievance is that the compensation awarded is too low and should be increased suitably. The appeal is opposed by the insurance company. The owner and the driver of the car have not appeared in this Court.

Ordinarily this Court in appeal does not interfere in the award of compensation unless the compensation awarded is too low or too excessive. Therefore, it has to be seen whether the award of compensation by the Tribunal is too low so that court should interfere with it. The Tribunal has thus found that the deceased Mukund was of about 12 years of age ; that he was doing the work of polishing shoes and was earning about Rs. 1/- per day and that he was looking after his blind mother. The trial Court further held that after the attainment of majority the deceased would have earned Rs. 3/- per day. According to the Tribunal the deceased would have contributed Rs. 10/- per month for six years i.e. upto the time when he attained the age of 18 year to the family. According to the Tribunal the father of the deceased was of 50 years of age and the mother was of 35 years of age at the time of the accident. The Tribunal held that the claimants would have lived upto the age of 65 years and that they would have received support from the deceased for 15 years excluding the period of six years during which he would have been a minor. Calculating on that basis the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Rs. 4,000/- would be the compensation which the claimants were entitled to receive from the Respondents.

There are apparent errors in the reasoning of the learned Member of the Tribunal. Firstly, if the deceased was earning Rs. 30/- per month and he would have earned Rs. 30/- p.m, till he attained the age of 18 years, he would contribute Rs. 30/- to the family and not Rs. 10/- as held by the Tribunal because apart from the work which he was doing and earning, the deceased would have helped the family in other ways including nursing of her blind mother. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the deceased would have spent Rs. 20/- p.m. on himself during that period. Then the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased would have earned Rs. 3/- per day after he attained the age of 18 years. It is common knowledge that the existing rate of wages is much more than Rs. 3/- per day. Then having held that the claimants would be entitled to receive support from the deceased till they attained the age 65 years, the learned Member of the Tribunal committed an error in arriving at the conclusion that the claimants would have received support from the deceased for 15 years that may be true in the case of father but the mother, whose age was 35 years, would have received support from the decased for 30 years. In view of these apparent errors, I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too low and should be suitably increased.

In Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and Others, a Division Bench of this Court has in similar circumstances maintained the award of Rs. 12,000/- as compensation. In that case the deceased was of about 12 years of age. He was studing in class III when he died as a result of the accident. The father of the child came from a labouring class and was earn-about Rs. 100/- by doing manual labour In these circumstances this Court main-tained the award of Rs. 12,000/- as compensation. In Misc. Appeal No. 193 (Munnibai v. State of M.P. and Anr. ) Misc. Appeal No. 19 3; decided on 7-9-1968 decided on 7-9-68 a Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances increased the compensation from Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 12,000/-. In that case the deceased was also about 12 years of age. He came from a poor family. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2 000/- as compensation on the ground that the deceased came from an ordinary family and, therefore the claimant --mother deserved to receive nominal damages. This reasoning was not approved of by this Court. This Court observed that if the deceased belonged to a poor family then his mother in all probabilities had to be dependent on him for support. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the said case decided by the Division Bench.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3. insurance company has contended that this Court should not interfere with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal because the Tribunal has in awarding compensation considered all the circumstances of the case. He has also placed relaince upon a case decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in C.K. Subramania Iyer and Others Vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and Others, . In this case their Lordships of the Supreme Court maintained the award of Rs. 6,000/- as compensation for the death of a boy of 8 years who came from a well-to-do family. This case was considered by this Court in M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal v. Kanhaiyalal and Ors.2 where it was observed that in the case before the Supreme Court the claimant belonged to a well-to-do family and the support of the deceased was not immediately needed to the claimants. The circumstances of the present case are different and the Supreme Court decision is not helpful to the Respondents.

As stated above the facts of this case are similar to the decisions of this Court in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and Others, and Misc. Appeal No. 193 (supra) in which a sum of Rs. 12,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that in the present case also the award of Rs. 12,000/- as compensation would be proper.

As a result of the discussion aforesaid this appeal is allowed with costs. The award of the Tribunal is modified and instead it is held that the claimant apellants are entitled to receive from the Respondents Rs. 12,000/- as compensation. As awarded by the Tribunal the Appellants shall get interest @ 6% per annum from the Respondents on the sum awarded from the date of the application till realisation. Counsel''s fee Rs. 200/-, if certified.