AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep N. Bhatt, J
The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant/s –original claimant/s – the parents and brother being the legal heirs of the deceased – Komal @ Sweety, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award dated 19.01.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Surat in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1076 of 2000, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with 9% per annum interest to the claimant/s, holding Opponents No.1 to 5 i.e. driver, owner and insurance company of the Truck bearing registration No.GJ-5-T -3237 and owner and insurance company of Tempo Traveller No.MH-18-H-393, respectively, liable, jointly and severally.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 That on 25.07.2000, the deceased, along with other relatives, was travelling in Tempo Traveller bearing registration No.MH -18-H-393, owned by opponent No.4, as occupants and was going from Amrativati towards Navapur. The driver of the said Tempo was driving his vehicle slowly and carefully observing traffic rules. At that time, opponent No.1 i.e. driver of the Truck bearing registration No.GJ-5-T-3237, owned by opponent No.2, came in rash and negligent manner, endangering human life from Navapur towards Dhulia from the opposite road in wrong side and dashed with the Tempo forcefully. As a result, the deceased and other persons along with driver of the Tempo sustained serious injuries and ultimately, they succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased have filed claim petition under Section 163(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.2,04,500/- with cost and interest for unnatural and untimely death against the present respondents before the Tribunal.
2.2 Notices were served to the opponents. Opponents No.1, 2 and 4 - driver and owner of the Truck and owner of the Tempo have chosen not to appear and contest the claim petition before the Tribunal. Opponents No.3 and 5 i.e. insurance company of Truck and Tempo, respectively, have filed their written statement / objections before the Tribunal. It is noted that the insurance company is the same for both the vehicles. It has disputed all the averments made by the claimant/s in the claim petition in their written statement/s.
2.3 The Tribunal has framed the issues. The oral as well as documentary evidence were led by the rival parties before the Tribunal. After considering the documentary as well as oral evidence and submissions made at the bar, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation as noted above.
2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant/s for enhancement.
Learned advocate Mr.Hakim for the appellant/s - claimant/s has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly calculating the amount of compensation. He has submitted that amount of award is on lower side as the Tribunal has not properly considered the various aspects; like prospective income of the deceased, negligence, liability and family circumstances, etc. He has submitted that the deceased was aged about only 12 years at the time of accident. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal versus Lala and others reported in 2013 ACJ 2594 (SC) as well as in the case of Meena Devi versus Nanu Chand Mato and others reported in 2022 ACJ 2478 (SC). He has submitted that as per the said decisions, the claimants would be entitled to get compensation of Rs.5 lakhs in all.
He has submitted that the compensation is required to be enhanced by modifying the award impugned accordingly and this appeal may be allowed.
Per contra, Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for respondent – Insurance Company has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased, the age of the deceased, the dependency and future aspect of income. He has submitted that under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation. He has submitted that the amount under the head of loss of consortium is just and proper. He has submitted that this appeal may be dismissed and no interference be made by this Court.
It is noteworthy to mention that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which gives paramount importance to the concept of ‘just and fair’ compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the concept of ‘just compensation’ which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the claimants.
6.1 I have considered the submissions made by the rival parties. I have perused the record and proceedings of the Tribunal. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. From the record, it transpires that the deceased was aged about 12 years. The Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased Rs.1,250/- and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the claimant/s.
6.2 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra), more particularly Para : 18 thereof, which reads as under :
“ 18. Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered together in favour of the appellants for the following reasons:-
The Tribunal having answered the contentious issue No.1, against the appellants in its judgment the same is concurred with by the High Court by assigning erroneous reasons and it has affirmed dismissal of the claim petition of the appellants holding that the accident did not take place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the first respondent and therefore the contentious issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the negative against the appellants and it has not awarded compensation in favour of the appellants.
Since we have set aside the findings and reasons recorded by both the Tribunal and the High Court on the contentious issue Nos.1 and 2 by recording our reasons in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment and we have answered the point in favour of the appellants and also examined the claim of the appellants to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellants as they have lost their affectionate 10 years old son. For this purpose, it would be necessary for us to refer to Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, at clause No.6 which refers to notional income for compensation to those persons who had no income prior to accident. The relevant portion of clause No.6 states as under:
"6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident:........…
a) Non-earning persons - Rs.15,000/- p.a".
The aforesaid clause of the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, is considered by this Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., while examining the tortuous liability of the tort-feasor has examined the criteria for awarding compensation for death of children in accident between age group of 10 to 15 years and held in the above case that the compensation shall be awarded taking the contribution of the children to the family at Rs.12,000/- p.a. and multiplier 11 has been applied taking the age of the father and then under the conventional heads the compensation of Rs.25,000/- was awarded. Thus, a total sum of Rs.1,57,000/- was awarded in that case. After noting the submission made on behalf of TISCO in the said case that the compensation determined for the children of all age groups could be double as in its view the determination made was grossly inadequate and the observation was further made that loss of children is irrecoupable and no amount of money could compensate the parents. Having regard to the environment from which the children referred to in that case were brought up, their parents being reasonably well-placed officials of TISCO, it was directed that the compensation amount for the children between the age group of 5 to 10 years should be three times. In other words, it should be Rs.1.5 lakhs to which under the conventional heads a sum of Rs. 50,000/-should be added and thus total amount in each case would be Rs. 2 lakhs. Further, in the case referred to supra it has observed that in so far as the children of age group between 10 to 15 years are concerned, they are all students of Class VI to Class X and are children of employees of TISCO and one of the children was employed in the Company in the said case having regard to the fact the contribution of the deceased child was taken Rs.12,000/- p.a. appears to be on the lower side and held that the contribution of such children should be Rs. 24,000/- p.a. In our considered view, the aforesaid legal principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa's case with all fours is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand having regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years' old, who was assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation which is an undisputed fact. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs. 30,000/- and further taking the young age of the parents, namely the mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident, by applying the legal principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 x 15 = 4,50,000 and 50,000/- under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas 4, which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa's case and the said amount under the conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the death of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this case also we award Rs.50,000/- under conventional heads. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons the said amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellants. The said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. by applying the law laid down in the case of Municipal Council of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy 5, for the reason that the Insurance Company has been contesting the claim of the appellants from 1992-2013 without settling their legitimate claim for nearly about 21 years, if the Insurance Company had awarded and paid just and reasonable compensation to the appellants the same could have been either invested or kept in the fixed deposit, then the amount could have earned five times more than what is awarded today in this appeal. Therefore, awarding 9% interest on the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants is legally justified.”
6.3 In view of the above ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the income of the deceased would be considered as Rs.30,000/- per annum as notional and adopting 15 multiplier, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.30,000/- income per annum x 15 multiplier). Further, under conventional heads towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium, it should be awarded Rs.50,000/- in all and therefore, total amount of compensation would come to Rs.5 lakhs, which is required to be awarded to the claimants as compensation.
6.4 In view of above, considering the facts and circumstances as well as ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claimants are entitled to get more compensation as noted above. Hence, total compensation would be as under, which the claimant/s is/are entitled to get.
Particulars
Amount (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency
4,50,000/-
Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses & Loss of Consortium
50,000/-
Total…
5,00,000/-
Less : Amount which is already awarded
1,50,000/-
Additional amount which is awarded
3,50,000/-
Therefore, I hold that the claimant/s are entitled to get the total amount of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,50,000/-, therefore, remaining amount of Rs.3,50,000/- would be the enhanced amount of compensation payable to the claimant/s.
For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed.
8.1 The appeal is partly allowed.
8.2 The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount Rs.3,50,000/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of claim petition till its realisation before the concerned Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
8.3 The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimants, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure.
8.4 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
8.5 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.