Gurdial Chand Sethi and Others vs Ram Sarup and Others

G.C. Garg, J.—This is claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation arising out of a petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

On September 16, 1983, one Krishna Rani alongwith her son Neetu and her mother were on their way to home and when reached in front of house of one Ajit Singh, truck No. HRB 8951 driven by respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2, hit them. Neetu and the mother of Krishna Rani died on the spot. Krishna Rani was taken to a Hospital in Hissar but she also succumbed to her injuries on the following day.

Gurdial Chand Sethi and his two minor children, namely, Neelam and Niraj, the appellants herein filed a claim petition claiming compensation, to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of the death of Krishna Rani and Neetu, a minor child aged 11 years. Krishna Rani was the wife of appellant No. 1 and mother of applicants 2 and 3 whereas Neetu the other deceased was the son of appellant No. 1 and brother of appellant Nos. 2 and 3. It was alleged in the claim petition that appellant No. 1 spent Rs. 3000/- on the purchase of medicines and Rs. 400/- on account of transportation charges of the dead body in a jeep from House to Ratia. He also spent Rs. 275/- on the carriage of dead body of Neetu to Fatehgarh for post mortem examination and back besides Rs. 5000/- more on the funeral and last rites of the deceased. It was also alleged that after the death of Krishna Rani, the mother of the minor children, the appellants had to employ a maid servant to look after the children and for cooking meals on a monthly pay of Rs. 250/-. In this way, the appellants claimed Rs. ,1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the deaths of Krishna Rani and Neetu respectively, besides interest thereon at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the petition. Though the claim petition was opposed by all the respondents, yet respondent No. 1 admitted that he was in the employment of respondent No. 2, the owner of the truck in question. He also admitted that he was driving the truck at the relevant time. The defence taken by respondent No. 1 was that the deceased merged on the road side all of a sudden in order to cross the road and he tried to save him. The ladies also rushed to catch hold of Neetu at once and were hit by the truck. Respondent No. 1, however, denied that he was rash and negligent in driving the truck.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short ''the Tribunal'') after going through the pleadings of the parties framed as many as five issues. After considering the entire evidence on the record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 23,475/- on account of death of Neetu and Rs. 33,550/- on account of Krishna Rani. The Tribunal also allowed the costs of the petition and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from March 15, 1984 till its realisation. The amount of compensation was recoverable from the Insurance Company - respondent No. 3. in the first instance and failing which the same was recoverable from respondents 1 and 2 who were held liable for payment jointly and severally, by award dated 10.5.1985.

Since there is no challenge to the award of the Tribunal on behalf of the respondents either by filing of separate appeal or cross objections herein, the only question that remains to be decided in this appeal is as to what amount of compensation, the appellants are entitled to recover from the respondents. The Tribunal concluded that Neetu was aged 11 years and was a student when he was crushed to death. A compensation of Rs. 19,200/- on account of death of Neetu besides a sum of Rs. 4275/- on account of transportation of dead body, costs of medicines and funeral expenses was allowed. In all, a sum of Rs. 23,475/- was allowed in the case of Neetu. While arriving at the figure of Rs. 19200/-, the learned Tribunal took the contribution of Neetu to his father at Rs. 100/- per month, being just and fair and applied a multiplier of 16.

In the case of Krishna Rani, the learned Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 4750/- ort account of transportation charges of dead body, purchase of medicines and funeral expenses, besides Rs. 28800/- on account of her death, i.e. Rs. 33,550 in all, after holding that the deceased was 35 years of age, and taking the dependency at Rs. 150/- per month. A multiplier of 16 was applied on her case also.

I have gone through the record of the case and find that this appeal deserves to succeed. As regards the compensation awarded in the case of Krishna Rani, it has been found as a fact by the learned Tribunal that appellant No. l, the husband of the deceased had to engage a maid servant on a monthly salary of Rs. 250/- to look after the children and to cook food and that deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of death. By taking the life span of 70 years and keeping in view the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal allowed Rs. 150/- per month and thus, worked out the figure of Rs. 1800/- per annum and by applying a multiplier of 16 awarded Rs. 28800/-. The Tribunal, in my view, clearly fell in error in awarding only a sum of Rs. 28800/- as compensation to the husband and minor children of Krishna Rani. It is well settled that services of a house-wife, even though rendered gratuitously, do indeed have a monetary value in respect of which the claimants are entitled to compensation. The deceased was only 35 years of age and she obviously left behind her husband who would be aged about 40 years. He cannot be expected to look after the minor children, domestic affairs or to cook food for them. He is admittedly carrying on the business of ready-made garments. The deceased being a house-wife was looking after household and providing comforts by rendering services to both, the husband and the minor children and she would have continued to do so, as already found by the Tribunal, upto the age of 70, i.e. for another 35 years. In a case like the present, it cannot be said that there is a possibility of the husband re-marrying when he has two minor children and is aged about 40 years, though possibility of such marriage cannot be ruled out. The contention of the husband that he had engaged a maid servant on a monthly salary of Rs. 250/- has not been disbelieved by the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 28800/- by taking a sum of Rs. 150/- per month as against the claim of Rs. 250/-. As stated earlier, the husband of the deceased is a shop-keeper engaged in the business of ready-made garments and thus, obviously is required to be out of station sometimes for making purchases and to work at the shop for a larger part of the day. It is in these circumstances, quite essential for him to engage a maid-servant to look after the children and cook food for them. Thus, taking an overall view and totality of the circumstances into consideration it would be just and fair to hold that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the death of Krishna Rani besides a sum of Rs. 4750/- already granted by the Tribunal on account of expenses on transportation and funeral etc. In almost a similar situation where the deceased was a household lady aged 27 years and left behind her 33 years old husband and a minor daughter under five years of age, this court in Harminder Singh and Anr. v. Sukhvinder Singh and Ors. 1987 A.C.J. 74 had allowed a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.

As regards the compensation awarded on account of the death of Neetu, a student aged about 11 years, it is again inadequate. In Raghbir Singh Vs. Makholi Ram and Others, the deceased was a boy of 12 years of age studying in a school. The claimant, his father was aged 48 years and the Tribunal had allowed a compensation of Rs. 20250/- for his death. On appeal, the High Court of Delhi enhanced the compensation to Rs. 40,000/-. The deceased in the reported case as well, was school-going and it was assumed that like any other ordinary child, he too would have completed his education and secured job thereafter. Taking his minimum contribution to the family at Rs. 300/- per month and leaving some margin for uncertainty of life, a multiplier of 15 was applied and consequently, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was awarded as compensation. This Court in Kaushalya Devi and Anr. v. Darshan Singh (1988) 93 P.L.R. 136 awarded a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- on account of death pi 16 years old girl student of Pre-Medical. Her father was a Chemist and the accident had taken place in January, 1981. In the present case, the accident took place in September, 1988 i.e. 2-1/2 years later and the deceased was an 11 years'' old student. Father of the deceased is running a ready-made garments'' shop whereas the uncle of the deceased is a qualified doctor. He obviously belonged to a good family and had brought prospects, either of getting a good job or of helping his father in his business after completing education. Even if he had helped his father at the shop of ready-made garments. He would have contributed to the business of his father and it cannot be said that his contribution in that situation would have been only to the tune of Rs. 100/- per month. It would have been more than Rs. 100/- per month as found in Raghbir Singh''s case (supra). His minimum contribution to the family could reasonably be of about Rs. 200/- per month after leaving some margin for uncertainty of life and applying the multiplier of 16 by taking the life expectancy at 70 years, the compensation to which the appellants should be entitled to on account of death of Neetu can be worked out at Rs. 38,400/- (200 x 12 x 16) rounded off to Rs. 40,000/-. In addition, the appellants are also entitled to Rs. 4275/- as already allowed by the Tribunal on account of expenses on transportation and funeral etc.

The appeal, for the reasons stated above, is allowed to the extent indicated above and the Award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. The appellants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of application viz. March 15,1984 to the date of payment. Since counsel for the parties have not put in appearance, there will be no order as to costs.