Choti Bai and Another vs Sharad Kumar

S.K. Dubey, J.—This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the claimants-parents, who claim enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of their son Babulal, aged about 25 years.

Second Member, Motor. Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore vide its award dated 30-10-83 in Claims Case No. 188 of 1981 held that Babulal who was a Harijan and was doing the job of a sweeper died in a motor accident on 10-4-1981 at about 6 p.m. by the use of truck No. CPO-7477 near Dhar Naka, Indore. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. The owner of the truck at the relevant time was respondent No. 1 and the truck was insured by the respondent No. 3 the New India Assurance Company. After holding the truck driver rash and negligent, the Tribunal in paragraphs 16 to 20 considered the monthly dependency of the parents at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. By adopting a multiplier of ten years, the compensation was arrived at Rs. 6000/- out of which Rs. 1000/- were deducted for the uncertainties of life and an amount of Rs. 5000/- was awarded to the parents with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment.

Shri H.S. Rajpal, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the award of compensation is too low. Though the accident occurred on 10-4-81, but when the Legislature has intended that a minimum compensation for a human life should be Rs. 15000/- by inserting Section 92-A in the Motor Vehicles Act even in cases of non-liability, the Tribunal ought to have awarded minimum compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the death of the young boy of their parents. The learned Counsel placed reliance on Shams her Khan and Anr. v. M.P. Electricity Board and Ors. 1987 LLJ 721, Rukmabai Kulmi Vs. Ramlal and Others, , and a decision delivered by this Court in Miss. Appeal No. 141 of 79 Deoji s/o Ganpat v. Anwar Khan and Ors. decided on 21-4-1988 and also a decision of the Bomay High Court reported in 1987 ACJ 1987 Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited v. Shanta Bai and Ors.

Shri B.K. Samdhani, appearing for respondent No. 3 the Insurance Company contended that the provisions of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act are not retrospective and as such compensation cannot be awarded on the basis of that section. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the case of the Rajasthan High Court in Yashoda Kumari and Others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others, , and on the case of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Mani Gupta and Others Vs. Mohammad Ibrahim and Another, . Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that the award is not too low and the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, looking to the age of the parents, is correct. Another submission was made by the learned Counsel that the widow of the deceased has not been joined as a party to the proceedings, and as such the claimants are not entitled to more than the amount awarded by the Tribunal and it does not call for interference in appeal. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on a case of the Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in Kulwant Singh Vs. Nand Kanr and Others, and on a case of the Madras High Court reported in Krishnammal and Others Vs. Associated Apparel (P) Ltd. and Another,

After considering the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be allowed to the extent indicated hereinafter, because for a human life, compensation of Rs. 5000/-, whether he is poor or rich, whether he is a Harijan or belonging to a weaker section or to an affluent society, would be too law. It cannot be considered, in the eyes of law, a just compensation and that is why the Legislature intended that in no fault liability cases, compensation of Rs. 15,000/- should be paid immediately as compensation and thereafter the matter may be decided on merits for payment to what extent the claim-ants are entitled to claim compensation, than the minimum. Therefore, the minimum limit fixed by the Legislature of Rs. 15,000/- should also be considered while deciding cases in appeals arising out of the cases wherein accident occurred before the insertion of Section 92-A in the Act. The provision of Section 92-A of the Act is a piece of welfare legislation, has to be interpreted liberally and its intendment and analogy can be applied by the High Courts while deciding appeals or cases, on the principle that compensation on merits, which is largely based on guess work, must be in accord with the principle that compensation for loss of life, if not more, has to be at least 15,000/-. Hence without going into the calculation of dependency and the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal, which, in my opinion, is not correct, I award the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs. 5000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

Hence this appeal is allowed to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- after giving adjustment'' of Rs. 5000/- which the claimants have already received as compensation. The claimants shall also be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application u/s 110-A of the Act, on the balance amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. This amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company the respondent No. 3 within six weeks from today.

Thus, this appeal is allowed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 500-00/-.