Ram Kunwar Bai and Another vs Hari Sharma and Others

K.M. Agarwal, J.—This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation of Rs. 11,500/-and of the rate of interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

One Maharaj Singh, the husband of the Appellant No. 1 and the father of the Appellant No. 2 was fatally injured and killed on 6.3.1980 by a mini bus driven by the Respondent No. 1, owned by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, insured with the Respondent No. 4. On an application for compensation, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 11,500/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the application. In this appeal, the Appellants claim enhancement of compensation with enhanced rate of interest.

The learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was inadequate and the rate of interest was also below the rate usually granted by the courts in such claim cases. He argued that after estimating the age of the deceased to be 60 years, his expectancy of life till 70 years, monthly income at Rs. 300/- and the monthly dependency at Rs. 150/-, the Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the loss of dependency for a period of 10 years and should have accordingly determined the amount of compensation. It was contended that the deceased had income from agriculture, besides income from milk vending. The agricultural income has been totally ignored while making assessment of compensation, which has resulted in fixing a very low amount of compensation for the Appellants. According to him, the Claims Tribunal also erred in not awarding interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation. He placed reliance in Raghuraji Devi and Others Vs. Haji Lal Mohammad Biri Works, ; Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shanti Upmannu and Others, ; Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Khargobai 1986 (1) MPWN Note 163; Rukmani Devi v. Basantilal 1984 ACJ 548 (MP); Suraj Prakash v. Ram Nath 1 (1986) ACC 175; Bhuribai v. Ramesh 1983 MPWN Note 232; N. Sivammal v. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation 1985 ACJ 75 (SC); Prem Chand v. Jasoda 1985 ACJ 315 (Rajasthan) and Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation 1985 ACJ 645 (SC).

The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 supported the impugned award of the Claims Tribunal. He cited Balwant Singh v. Jhannubai 1980 ACJ 126 (MP) and submitted that agricultural income of the deceased was rightly excluded from consideration by the Claims Tribunal. According to him, the rate of interest was excessive. It should not have gone beyond 6 per cent per annum. Similarly, it was argued that no damages for mental and physical sufferings could be awarded to the Appellants.

In paragraph 41 of its impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has found that the Appellants suffered no loss in agricultural income due to the death of the deceased. Because as per his own admission, the Appellant No. 2 used to look after the agriculture during the lifetime of the deceased and was looking after it even after the death of the deceased and there was no change in the income from agriculture. The agricultural income of the deceased was, therefore, rightly excluded from consideration by the Claims Tribunal The view is supported by a decision of this Court in Balwant Singh v. Jhannubai 1980 ACJ 126 (MP). The decision of Allahabad High Court in Raghuraji Devi and Others Vs. Haji Lal Mohammad Biri Works, , is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 9,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency and Rs. 1,500/- for mental and physical pain to the Appellants, besides awarding Rs. 1,000/- for loss of companionship to the Appellant No. 1. The decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shanti Upmannu and Others, , relied on by learned Counsel for the Appellants holds that no compensation for mental and physical sufferings can be awarded. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Khargobai 1986 (1) MPWN Note 163. In Rukmani Devi v. Basantilal 1984 ACJ 548 (MP), this Court refused to set aside the award of damages on account of mental agony and suffering "because the Respondents have not preferred appeal against award of the Tribunal or filed cross-objections objecting the award of the Tribunal" but at the same time excluded from consideration damages for mental agony and sufferings of the claimants, while awarding lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000/- "as compensation which includes pecuniary loss sustained by her on account of the death of her son Arun Kumar, expenses incurred by the claimants in the treatment of Arun Kumar and damages under the head ''pain and suffering'' caused to the deceased Arun Kumar."

In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shanti Upmannu and Others, , the Rajasthan High Court held that the wife is entitled to damages for loss of companionship of the husband. The award of Rs. 1,000/- as such compensation by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, does not appear to be unreasonable.

The Tribunal has found that the deceased was 60 years of age on the date of his death and has estimated his future expectancy of life till 70 years. As such, it does not appear justified in estimating the period of dependency to be 5 years. It should have been taken to be 10 years. The reasons given by the Claims Tribunal for holding that the deceased would not have been in a position to make earnings after the age of 65 years does not furnish any basis and, therefore, it cannot be accepted. The monthly dependency has been determined by the Claims Tribunal at Rs. 150/- and accordingly the quantum of 10 years'' dependency works out to Rs. 18,000/-. In a case of lump sum payment, 20% deduction was allowed by the Allahabad High Court in Raghuraji Devi and Others Vs. Haji Lal Mohammad Biri Works, . In Bhuribai v. Ramesh 1983 MPWN Note 232, it was held that in a case where the amount of compensation is computed without taking into account the future increase in the wages and dearness allowance of the deceased, it is not permissible to make deduction. But, in the present case, the deceased was not in the employment of any person or undertaking. The evidence shows that his milk vending depended on supply of milk by others. The monthly income of the deceased was not static and his monthly income of Rs. 300/- was estimated on the basis of his varying income from milk vending. In N. Sivammal v. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation 1985 ACJ 75 (SC), no deduction was made from the amount of compensation determined. But, it is not laid down that no deduction is permissible in cases of lump sum payment of compensation. In Prem Chand v. Jasoda 1985 ACJ 315 (Rajasthan), it was held that "dynamic and pragmatic interpretation of this social welfare legislation which is a measure of social security for the dependency of the deceased or injured requires that traditional deduction based on the principles of British system should be treated as obsolete and outdated in the present times.... In Balwant Singh v. Jhannubai 1980 ACJ 126 (MP), it was said in paragraph 18 of the decision that "considering the fall in the value of money, of which judicial notice can be taken we are of opinion that it is not proper and desirable to make any such deduction" in cases of lump sum payments. Relying on Balwant Singh''s case (supra), I hold that it is not proper in the present case to make any deduction on account of lump sum payment of compensation.

In various cases relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, interest at varying rates between 6 to 12 per cent per annum were awarded. In Rukmani Devi v. Basantilal 1984 ACJ 548 (MP), this Court awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. While awarding interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, the Supreme Court held in Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation 1985 ACJ 645 (SC), that it was within the discretion of the court to award interest at such rate and from such date, not earlier than the date of the application, as it may think fit in exercise of its discretion. In the present case, the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the application has been awarded. The exercise of discretion in awarding interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum cannot be said to be improper or injudicious exercise of discretion on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the present case. I, therefore, find that no case is made out for enhancement in the rate of interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

As a result of my foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the Appellants are entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs. 19,000/-, which includes damages for loss of companionship to the Appellant No. 1, but does not include compensation for the alleged mental and physical sufferings of the Appellants. In addition, the Appellants are entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the amount of Rs. 19,000/- from the date of application till the date of payment.

Accordingly this appeal succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The amount of compensation of Rs. 11,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 19,000/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the application and till the date of payment. The Respondents will, of course, get credit of the amounts already paid by them to the Appellants and the interest shall be calculated taking into account the said payments. The Appellants shall also be entitled to get their costs of this appeal from the Respondent No. 4, the New India Assurance Company. Counsel''s fee Rs. 250/-, if already certified.