Ram Kaur and Others vs The State of Punjab and Another

P.D. Sharma, J.—This first appeal is directed against an award given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on an application preferred by Mrs. Ram Kaur, Udham Singh, Shanti Devi, Chotu Ram and Mrs. Dhanno u/s 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The facts as alleged by them are as under: Shamsher Singh husband of the first, father of second and third and son of fourth and fifth was standing on the right side of the road in front of a tea shop situate in the area of village Kharwar at about 4.30 P.M. on 4th January, 1962. Hazari Lal Respondent No. 2 was driving vehicle No. PNG 2437 owned by the Punjab Roadways in a rash and negligent manner from Delhi side to Rohtak. He after knocking down Shamsher Singh ran over a cot breaking it into pieces and then collided against two neem trees after getting over a raised platform in front of the house of Ratti Ram potter (Kumhar). Shamsher Singh received fatal injuries and died on the spot. Pran Nath A.W. 2, A.S.I. reached there and recorded the statement of Thakar Das by way of First Information Report. The driver was subsequently convicted u/s 304-A of the Indian Penal Code by Mr. G.D. Bhasin, Magistrate 1st Class, and sentenced to years rigorous imprisonment.

The State of Punjab, Respondent No. 1, pleaded that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and so the claimants were not entitled to any sum by way of compensation. They explained that Hazari Lal driver was during the ill-fated bus on 4th January, 1962, from Delhi to Rohtak and when he was passing through village Kalnor, a cyclist was seen by him going on the same direction. The cyclist, on nearing the tea shop suddenly turned toward the right so as to cross the road and the driver in order to avoid him being run over also turned towards the right but in spite of it the accident took place. They admitted that Shamsher Singh was employed as a teacher in the school and that he died as a result of the accident.

The Tribunal framed the following issues:

Whether the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the Punjab State bus ?

What is the quantum of compensation due, if any.

Relief.

Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimants. As regards issue No. 2 he allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per mensem for a period of 15 years, out of which Rs. 2400/- were to go to the widow and Rs. 2400/- to each of her two children. The parents were denied any relief on the short ground that they owned 20 kacha bighas of land which would be sufficient for their maintenance. The Punjab State was made liable to pay this amount. Mrs. Ram Kaur and her two children were allowed costs of the cause. The claimants in this appeal have prayed that the amount of compensation be enhanced from Rs. 7200/-to Rs. 30,000/- as originally claimed by them. Finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 was not agitated before me.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants maintained that the Tribunal had assessed the compensation in an arbitrary and unwarranted manner inasmuch as without assigning any reason he had limited the compensation for a period of 15 years at the rate of Rs. 40/- per mensem only. After going through the last para of the award which deals with the point under controversy, I am inclined to agree with the learned Counsel. The Supreme Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and Another Vs. R.M.K. Veluswami and Others, while ascertaining the amount of compensation payable to the claimants in cases like the present one has laid down the following guide lines--

The same principle was restated with force and clarity by Viscount Simon in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. 1961 A.C. 601. There the learned Lord was considering the analogous provisions of the British Columbia legislation and he put the principle thus at p. 614:

The claim for damages in the present case falls under two separate heads. First, if the deceased had not been killed, but had eked out the full span of life to which in the absence of the accident he could reasonably have looked forward, what sums during that period would he probably have applied out of his income to the maintenance of his wife and family ?

Viscount Simon then proceeded to lay down the mode of estimating the damages under the first head. According to him, at first the deceased man''s expectation of life has to be estimated having regard to his age. bodily health and the possibility of premature termination of his life by later accidents; secondly, the amount required for the future provision of his wife shall be estimated having regard to the amounts he used to spend on her during his lifetime, and other circumstances, thirdly, the estimated annual sum is multiplied by the number of years of the man''s estimated span of life, and the said amount must be discounted so as to arrive at the equivalent in the form of a lump sum payable on his death, fourthly, further deductions must be made for the benefit accruing to the widow from the acceleration of her interest in his estate ; and, fifthly, further amounts have to be deducted for the possibility of the wife dying earlier if the husband had lived the full span of life, and it should also be taken into account that there is the possibility of the widow remarrying much to the improvement of her financial position. It would be seen from the said mode of estimation that many imponderables enter into the calculation. Therefore, the actual extent of the pecuniary loss to the Respondents may depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate, or even partly a conjecture. Shortly stated, the general principle is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by reason of the death, that is, the balance of loss and gain to the dependent by the death must be ascertained.

The facts proved in the present case are that Shamsher Singh was employed as a teacher at the time of the accident and was drawing Rs. 120/- per mensem as his emoluments. He was 27 1/2 years old. Mrs. Ram Kaur Applicant was 30 years old when she appeared in the witness-box on 6th December, 1962. Her son and daughter are aged 4 1/2 and 1 1/2 years, respectively. It is a matter of common knowledge that under ordinary circumstances, Shamsher Singh would have continued in service till he attained the age of 55 years. He would have drawn much more at the time of his retirement than what he was earning at the time of the accident. It also cannot be doubted that he must have been spending half of his earnings on the wife and two children and not one-third as stated by the Tribunal. In view of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the cited case the amount of compensation admissible to the three claimants should have been at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month extending over a period of 27 years, i.e. Rs. 19,440/- (60 x 12 x 27). Half of this amount i.e. Rs. 9720/- should go to Mrs. Ram Kaur and other half in equal shares to her two children. The amount made payable to the children will be invested in the manner suggested by the Tribunal in the award. The criterion followed by me is in consonance with the rule laid in Gargi Devi and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. 1968 A.C.J. 30.

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Respondent No. 1 shall also pay costs to the Appellants.