Devi Singh and Others vs Jagveer Singh and Others

J.K. Ranka, J.�Instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the impugned award dated 22/11/2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, in claim case No. 82/2006, whereby the Tribunal has partially allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants/appellants and granted an award of total sum of Rs. 2,70,400/- as compensation in favour of the claimants/appellants.

The brief facts, as emerging on the face of record and gathered after hearing arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as well as on perusal of the record received from the Tribunal, are that Kirma Devi, who was coming from village Halena to her own residence on 15/11/2004, when she got down from the bus and when she was going slowly on her side, then at 2 P.M. UP Roadways Bus No. UP-85-M-9069 which was driven in a rash & negligent manner and with high speed by its driver Jagveer Singh, came and hit the deceased Kirma Devi and on account of the said accident, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries and during the course of treatment, she died at Jaipur in SMS Hospital on 16/11/2004.

An FIR to this effect was registered in Police Station Halena, against the respondent No. 1 Jagveer Singh (driver), who was an employee of respondent No. 2-Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The claim was lodged against the said two respondents and also against the Insurance Company.

Since the respondent No. 1 did not appear before the learned Tribunal despite of service, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him.

A reply was filed by respondent No. 2 stating therein that the deceased suddenly started running on the main road and there was no mistake of the driver rather there was negligence of the deceased and therefore, the Corporation is not liable. The Insurance Company also filed a reply stating therein that no information was there from the insured and further stated that negligence was of the deceased rather than the driver.

The Tribunal framed five issues including the issue of relief and after analyzing the material available on record, fir, Challan filed in the competent court, License of the bus driver, Registration, Postmortem Report and other Medical Bills etc., came to be conclusion that the accident did occur on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver Jagveer Singh i.e. driver of the offending vehicle and decided the issue holding the respondent No. 1 and 2 liable for causing the said accident.

Tribunal after holding the respondents No. 1 & 2 liable, in so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, observed that the claimants-appellants were unable to prove by acceptable evidence that the deceased was doing something and no evidence was led about her tailoring work at her residence. The deceased was a healthy lady of about 34 years and it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that she was certainly doing work of tailoring, however, the Tribunal assessed an income of Rs. 1,800/- per month and allowed the compensation to the extent of 2,70,400/- applying the multiplier of 16 and also awarded certain amount of love and affection/consortium etc. Since the compensation, according to the claimants/appellants, is low, the present appeal has been filed.

Counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was doing tailoring work and was earning income to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- per month and he submitted that no reason has been assigned by the Tribunal as to how and on what basis an income of Rs. 1,800/- per month has been assessed. In addition to that he contended that deceased was doing household work and was maintaining the family and in the light of the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. National Insurance Company and Others, & Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , he submitted that gratuitous services rendered to the family by the lady towards household, though cannot be compensated in terms of money but still needs consideration. He further contended that the dependents are six, therefore, deduction ought to have been 1/4th rather than 1/3rd in the light of the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, .

He further contended that the amount allowed on account of loss of love & affection, consortium, Funeral Expenses etc., is low and needs to be allowed appropriately. He further contended that just and fair compensation is to be allowed and which, in the present case, has not been allowed, therefore, the compensation needs to be enhanced.

Per contra ld. Counsel for the respondents jointly objected to any enhancement and jointly submitted that the negligence was of the deceased and there was no fault of the driver, and the compensation has rightly been awarded. They further contended that the incident is of the year 2004 and the amount allowed at Rs. 2,70,400/- at that time is just, fair and needs no interference. They contended that no evidence was led by the claimants/appellants of any earnings of Rs. 5,000/- per month and therefore, Tribunal had computed the income correctly at Rs. 1,800/-. They contended that though the dependents are stated to be six but husband so also mother-in-law cannot be said to be dependent on the lady/deceased and therefore, the deduction allowed at 1/3rd is proper they further contended that the amount allowed on other factor, loss of love & affection etc. has also been awarded appropriately looking to the year of the accident being 2004 and, therefore, the award does not require to be interfered with.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order as also the record received from the Tribunal.

In my view, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 Jagveer Singh, who was driving the Roadways Bus with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and because of the said accident she died, she was a healthy lady of about 34 years of age and left behind not only husband but four minor children aged about 4 to 10 years, who have been deprived of love & affection of their mother who being a mother, was maintaining them very well. In my view, the Tribunal after analyzing all the material including fir, Challan filed in the competent Court and other material available on record, has correctly concluded about the accident and holding the respondents liable. However, in my view, the amount allowed as compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,70,400/- is on the lower side and would be required to be enhanced.

Certainly, no evidence has been led by the claimant/appellant about any income earning activity of the deceased, however, the fact that the ladies in families specially the persons coming from lower middle class family do certain works, may be tailoring or do part time work with other families of affluent class and they do earn may be part time by providing services in various household and these facts cannot be denied and in my view, keeping this in mind even during the year 2004, a lady can be said to earn an amount of Rs. 2,400/- per month which can be said to be her income which she may be earning out of tailoring or other work with other household.

Equally important is the fact that the woman maintain house hold, bring up children and her contribution cannot be ignored. The Courts have recognized that the contribution made by an Indian wife/women to the household is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by an Indian wife/women with true love and affection to the family members including husband/children and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by the others. A lady despite being a working women takes care of all the requirement of the family members, holds everyone together and gives her selfless services, she not only cooks food but also washes clothes and shapes the children and provides extensive guidelines to them for their future life. Though in many households there may be servants who may be doing such works but unless she involves herself things cannot move and servants cannot be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless services to the entire family. As observed by Hon''ble Apex Court in the cases supra on account of gratuitous services Rs. 1,200/- i.e. 50% of income can be taken, accordingly, total income including gratuitous service rendered in the family has been taken at Rs. 3,600/- per month.

In my view, though the counsel for the respondents has rightly stated that husband and mother-in-law cannot be said to be dependents and that may be true, leaving apart husband and mother-in-law, there are four children left by the deceased, therefore even as per the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), deduction is required to be allowed at 1/4th. There is no dispute that the multiplier has been rightly adopted at 16, considering the age of the deceased at 34 years.

In my view, the amount allowed on account of loss of love & affection and consortium, is directed to be increased to Rs. 20,000/- (Consortium) and Rs. 7,500/- each towards love & affection to each child and mother-in-law, the funeral expenses is not required to be interfered with, other amount allowed on account of medical bills etc. are taken at Rs. 10,000/- with this the claim is to be computed here-under:--

Accordingly, the claim is enhanced from Rs. 2,70,400/- as allowed by the Tribunal to Rs. 5,85,900/- as above.

Since the amount of Rs. 2,70,400/- has already been paid by the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall make endeavour to pay/deposit the balance amount of Rs. 3,16,000/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the award, which shall be calculated by the Tribunal on the enhanced claim.

Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order/award dated 22/11/2006 is modified to the extent that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 3,16,000/- with the interest will be paid by the respondents. The Tribunal is directed to deposit 50,000/- each of the enhanced amount with interest rounded of to the nearest thousands each in the separate account of the claimants-appellants of the deceased Kirma Devi in Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) with the nearest Post Office of the residence of the claimant-appellants for a period of 5 years. The remaining balance enhanced amount shall be given to Devi Singh husband of the deceased by Bankers Cheque/Bank Draft. It is made clear that the claimant/appellants will be allowed interest only as aforesaid and full amount on its maturity and will not be allowed to take loan or pledge the same with Post Office or raise loan on the said MIS. In the case of minor children, the MIS will be renewed from time to time till the children become major. The appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above.