Irappa and Another vs The Managing Director, KSRTC

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent. Perused the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. I filed for condonation of delay of 645 days in filing the appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, delay stands condoned.

The appeal is taken up for final disposal.

The claimants have preferred this appeal against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gadag in M.V.C. No. 116 of 1996 for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 57,000/- with 12% interest.

The facts very briefly are.-

On 3-4-1995 the deceased Anasawwa aged about 12 years was going to kadhara for work. She was standing at the bus stop along with her father, the first petitioner. At about 9.00 a.m. a KSRTC bus driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner, ran over the deceased and the deceased died on the spot. The parents of the deceased were the claimants. The case of the claimants was that the deceased was doing coolie work and was earning between Rs. 25/- to Rs. 50/- per day. It was also contended that the deceased who was a young girl aged about 12 years was a bright child with potential to go to school. The parents of the deceased also depended in a large measure on the income earned by the deceased. The Tribunal held that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and held that the respondent was liable to pay the compensation.

The learned Counsel for the respondent does not even remotely question the negligence on the part of the driver. Therefore, we are left with the amount of compensation to be enhanced if any.

According to the learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants, the claim petition ought to have been allowed as the claim was for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that though the claim petition was filed u/s 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it ought to be treated u/s 163-A of the Act and an approximate compensation ought to have been determined as nearly Rs. 2,00,000/- as per Schedule. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Puttamma and Another Vs. D.V. Krishnappa and Another, wherein this Court has dealt with a case of a boy who was aged about 14 years old. The Court relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Haji Zainullah Khan (dead) by L.Rs v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad 1994 SCC (Cri.) 1568 : 1994 ACJ 995 and came to the conclusion that the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In paras 4 and 5, the Court has held as follows.-

" "4. It is no doubt true that in cases of very young children, no basis exists for estimating the future pecuniary benefits which the parents could be said to have lost by the death. The prospects of employment and of financial assistance, to the parents who look up to their dutiful and grateful children, are so remote in the future that any estimates tend to become mere speculative possibilities than reasonable probabilities. Such estimates of chances of future monetary contributions to the parents are pressed into extinction by multiple uncertainties and imponderables of the future. It is, therefore, that awards are made in such cases in merely conventional sums. By these tests no award can, in the case of very young children, be made for loss of future pecuniary benefits".

Therefore, Sri Ramesh is not correct in saying that when a non-earning member of the family, may be a child of 14 years or 20 years suffers death because of the road accident, the loss suffered by the family is not required to be compensated. The compensation, no doubt, will be more in the nature of a money solace. But, nonetheless, it needs to be quantified.

In the case of Haji Zainullah Khan, supra, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the question of compensation payable in respect of a student of 14 years, has held that Rs. 1,50,000/- will be a just compensation. We can take this to be the conventional amount for awarding compensation for non-earning members of the family like the young children and students. This view of ours now finds support from the Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that notional income for the purpose of compensation to those who had no income can be taken to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum out of which l/3rd has to be deducted for notional personal expenses and thereafter on application of appropriate multiplier, the compensation can be ascertained. The multiplier for the children aged upto 15 years has been set out as ''15''. On applying the same, the compensation payable in case of the children upto 15 years will come to Rs. 1,50,000/-".

Further, the learned Counsel for the appellants also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court which was relied on by the Division Bench of this Court referred to earlier and submitted that in a case of deceased aged about 20 years old who was a B.Sc. first year student, the Supreme Court had granted a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

Mr. Vijayakumar, learned Counsel for the respondent strenuously submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Puttamma''s case, supra, requires reconsideration and the matter be placed before a Full Bench, The learned Counsel submitted that the Division Bench of this Court erroneously applied the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Haji Zainullah Khan, supra and submitted that the Supreme Court dealt with a case where the deceased was a bright student doing his B.Sc. first year degree and the facts before the Division Bench was that it related to a boy of 14 years and that there was no comparison. Mr. Vijayakumar, the learned Counsel for the respondent relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Murugesh and Others Vs. M. Palappa and Others, wherein the Supreme Court granted a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with respect of a deceased who was a student aged 18 years old. Reference was also made to a judgment in Jamnabai and Others Vs. Deepak Automobiles and Others, wherein the Supreme Court with respect to a deceased aged about 20 years granted compensation of Rs. 50,000/-

It is clear that ultimately the quantum of compensation will have to be determined on the facts of each case. It is also settled law that the Second Schedule of Section 163-A can be a guideline while assessing damages even though the claim petition is made u/s 166 of the Act. The Supreme Court in JT 2002 (Supp.)l SC 451, took a view that although the claim petition was u/s 166 of the Act, guidelines can be sought from the Second Schedule of Section 163-A. The Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Puttamma''s case, supra, has also approved the method of seeking the guidelines of the Second Schedule of Section 163-A even with respect to a claim petition filed u/s 166 of the Act. We are not of the view that these guidelines are totally binding on the Courts when a claim petition is made u/s 166 of the Act. But that will not preclude the Courts from seeking guidance with respect to the Second Schedule and ultimately whether a claim petition is filed u/s 166 or 163-A, there is no bar for Courts to seek guidance under the Second Schedule of Section 163-A. This would be in our view the correct approach in order to maintain consistency in awarding compensation. The Parliament in its wisdom has held that certain notional income can be considered when a person has no income and the requisite multiplier is also stated in the Second Schedule out of which 1/3rd is to be deducted as expenses. We do not find any inconsistency in the judgments that have been placed before us that requires the matter to be placed before the larger Bench of this Court.

We respectfully agree with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Puttamma''s case, supra, and accordingly, following the judgments and for the reasons stated therein, we enhance the compensation from Rs. 57,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest as stipulated by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation with interest shall be deposited in the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs.