Laxmim Laxman Varang and Others vs Purshottam Volvoikar and Others

A.A. Halbe, J.—The appellants--original petitioners (mother and sisters) have preferred this appeal against the quantum awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panaji in Claim Petition No. 79 of 1985. Whereas the claim preferred was to the extent of Rs. 3,50,000/-, the learned Member was pleased to award the compensation of Rs. 57,500/- with 8% interest thereon plus the costs of Rs. 2,000/-. According to the appellants, this amount is based on wrong calculation in the matter of compensation awarded by the learned Member. Ex-facia, the contribution taken towards the family by the deceased is ridiculously low and hence the compensation should be enhanced.

The learned Advocate for appellants has contended that although the learned Member was pleased to record the findings that the earning of the deceased was around Rs. 1,000/-, the contribution of Rs. 300/- p.m. was not at all proper in the context of his monthly salary. That amount should have been taken at the rate of Rs. 800/- to Rs. 900/- p.a. Further there were other heads on which compensation should have been awarded.

The learned Advocate for respondents has supported the judgment inter-alia contending that the approach of the Tribunal is perfectly legal; that there is some suspicion about the bonafides of the petitioners since the petition has been initiated at the instance of some third party. It is, therefore, doubted as to whether the real claimants are behind the scene or that the matter is operated by persons who are really not interested in the claim but in the amount of compensation.

It may be stated that on the question of negligence, no serious challenge has been offered in view of the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants. The facts are that on 1.10.1985, the deceased was standing near the Pan shop and at about 2.15 p.m. the jeep No. GDL-9740 belonging to the appellant-respondent No. 2 came in high speed. It was driven by respondent No. 1 i.e. Purushottam Volvoikar. As a result of rash and negligent driving, the deceased Yeshwant Varang--the son of appellant No. 1 and brother of appellants Nos. 2 and 3--was knocked down. He sustained serious injuries and died on account of the accident. The petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500/- p.m.

On the question of negligence, there is evidence of (A.W. 3) Muktu Swami, who had deposed that near his Pan shop, the deceased was waiting on the road side near the telephone pole in order to cross the road. A bus was coming from Panaji side and thereafter the offending jeep came and knocked down the deceased. The driver of the jeep had sufficient distance to visualise the person on the road and despite that, the driver knocked down the deceased. This evidence has not been dislodged in the cross-examination.

There is produced on record a certified copy of panchanama which shows that the break marks extended over the distance of 8'' and 4" long and that the offending jeep was stopped at a distance of 54''. This is the eloquent circumstance which clearly establishes the negligence as well as rashness on the part of the jeep driver. A contrary version comes from respondents'' witness Shrikant Chodankar, who supports the story of the driver that the offending jeep was going at a slow speed.

The learned Member, on the fair assessment of the oral as well as documentary evidence, rightly came to the conclusion that this is a clear case of rash and negligent driving on the part of the jeep driver. This finding we are not inclined to disturb in view of the proper approach of the learned Member. The learned Advocate for respondents has not been able to pin point any part of evidence led on behalf of the petitioners to show that the same is not reliable and that the story canvassed by the respondents is a true story.

Having resolved the question of negligence and rashness on the part of jeep driver, we feel that the quantum awarded by the learned Member of the Tribunal has also to be considered. The learned Member found that looking to the profession of the deceased, who was earning around Rs. 40/- per day, the income can well be quantified at Rs. 1,500/- p.m. However, surprisingly he recorded the finding about contribution much less than the legitimate amount, which can be assumed in this case. He has quantified the contribution of Rs. 300/- p.m. which comes to Rs. 3,600/- per year and giving multiplier of 10, the total amount of compensation has been fixed at Rs. 36,000/-. The deceased was around 22 years of age. All the petitioners were wholly dependents on him. It is stated on behalf of the learned Advocate for the respondents that one of the sisters was employed but on examining the record, we find that she was working as a domestic servant. We could legitimately assume the petty income she might be deriving from this work. We are, therefore, inclined to take the dependency at Rs. 600/- p.m. We are aware that the deceased would have been married after couple of years and hence his contribution would have been substantially reduced. But all the same, on an average we can take the contribution at Rs. 600/- p.m. which comes to Rs. 7,200/- per year, with multiplier of 10. Rs. 10,000/- shall have to be added for loss of life. We are, therefore, inclined to grant compensation of Rs. 82,000/- to the claimants.

The interest awarded by the learned Member is at the rate of 8%. The normal rate of interest payable in respect of these claims since 1985 has been 12%. We shall, therefore, enhance that rate as well. Rest of the award can well be confirmed. Accordingly, the following order.

Appeal partly allowed. The respondents shall pay Rs. 82,000/- with 12% interest thereon from the date of application till payment. They shall also pay the costs of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Whatever has been deposited on behalf of the respondents, shall be adjusted in this amount. Rs. 15,000/- have been deposited under "No fault liability". That amount shall be adjusted towards this compensation. The balance amount which will be found due from the respondents, shall be deposited by the respondents in this Court within a period of eight (8) weeks. The question of apportionment of this compensation is however reserved.