M.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Chhanibai and Others

T.N. Singh, J.—On 22-6-1981, the accident took place and as a result of bus No. CPH 8668 having overturned, Shivlal met his death. He was a passenger in the vehicle and was aged 50 years on that date. He left surviving him, his widow and four sons and a daughter. Two sons and a daughter were minors when he died. On the heirs, application, Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal, Gwalior, for short, the ''Tribunal'' awarded compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- for Shivlal''s death with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment.

The appellant in this Court is the owner of the offending motor vehicle afore-mentioned. Shri Mittal has urged several contentions and indeed with great ability, but after looking to the evidence and perusing the judgment of the Tribunal, we are satisfied that our interference with the Award, for reasons to follow, is not at all warranted.

The first question to be considered is whether the Tribunal''s finding on the point of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle is sustainable in law. The claimant exmined Surendra Singh (PW. 1) the co-passenger of the deceased who, indeed, was the best person to depose as to how the Vehicle was driven and we say this for the Singular reason that the Driver did not enter the witness-box though he was impleaded in the claim. The evidence of Surendra Singh has been believed by the Tribunal and in this Court, we see no reason to take a different view of his evidence. He has deposed to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the Driver and bis evidence has remined uncontroverted. We consider his testimony to be unimpeachable and accept the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the liability of the appellant on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle leading to the accident in question.

The second question, and indeed the main question on which vocal submissions are made by Shri Mittal, is that of the quantum of the compensation awarded He has assailed the Award mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the income tax returns of deceased Shivlal have been misread by the Tribunal and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the annual income of the deceased was Rs. 17,000/- is not sustainable in law. Let this point be considered first and disposed of. True it is that the Tribunal has arrived at the figure of Rs. 17,000/- after taking into consideration the income from house property. In other words, the unearned income of the deceased. But, the question also is if that would affect the validity of the Award passed in so far as the question of quantum is concerned. Shri Haswani, appearing for the claimants/respondents, has drawn our attention to the decision in N. Sivammal and Others Vs. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation and Another, to submit that the Award as a whole in its entirety, has to be viewed when the question of validity in regard to the quantum of the Award is in issue in any case. If the computation is wrongly done, that can be considered and if on correct computation, the total corpus of the sum awarded is sustainable, then, no interference with such an Award is called for (see, Khargobai (1986) 1 MPWN 163). In the instant case, it is rightly submitted that the Tribunal erred in 1aw in arriving at total quantum of compensation using the multiplier of tea recokoning the longevity of deceased Shivlal at sixty years. It is contended by Shri Haswani that the view now expressed by their Lordships of Supreme Court is that with improved healthcare average life of an Indian can be reckoned very easily at seventy years.

We have no hesitation to accept counsel''s submission and to take the view that if the multiplier twenty is used, the claimants will be entitled to much more than the sum awarded and there being no cross appeal for enhancing the quantum, we would not be justified to do anything else than merely affirming the Award. The view we have taken disposes also Shri Mittal''s second ground of challenge to the Award. He has contended that in the total sum awarded as compensation, the Tribunal has also included a sum of Rs. 12,000/- for mental suffering and Rs. 3,000/- for loss of company. These challenges also evaporate on the application of N. Sivammal (supra). May be, the Award is erroneous to that extent, but the question still would be if these two sums are excluded, whether the total amount of the Award can be said to be excessive and not sustainable in law. As we have said that the multiplier should be twenty and not ten, that can take care also of the position that exclusion of Rs. 15,000/- would not make any dent on the total amount of sum awarded.

Shri Mittal has submitted that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has already been deposited after the accident took place and there is also no appeal against the award of interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. As such, it cannot be said to be unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. We accept his contention and hold that the submission of Sbri Haswant for enhancing the rate of interest in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not acceptable.

ln the result, we hold this appeal to be meritless and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.