Ram Singh Bilala and Others vs Sheikh Sikandar and Others

R.K. Verma, J.—This is an appeal filed by the claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased Mohbai, being her husband and four minor children, against the Award dated 27.1.1981 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Nirmar, Mandleshwar in Claim Case No. 30/79.

It has been found by the learned Tribunal that the deceased Mohbai who was employed to work as a labourer on the truck No. MPF 7387 carrying manure to be unloaded at the destination by the deceased and other labourers, died as a result of injuries sustained, in the motor accident which took place on 10.12.1978 on account of the truck dashing a hill about 15 Kms., from Barwani due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. The learned Tribunal has found that the deceased Mohbai was a house wife aged about 45 years and also earned Rs. 3/- per day as labourer at the time of her death by accident. As regards quantum of compensation payable to the claimants in respect of death of deceased Mohbai, the learned Tribunal has assessed Rs. 300/- as annual loss of dependency and a total compensation of Rs. 6000/-.

Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount of compensation awarded, the claimants have filed this appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant-claimants has submitted that even though the accident occurred on 10.12.78 i.e. prior to coming into force of Section 92-A introduced by amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 with effect from 1.10.82, the minimum compensation payable to the claimants for loss of life on account of motor accident, ought to have been awarded by the learned Tribunal in accordance with Section 92-A of the Act which provides for liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. Learned counsel has in support of his submission cited decisions of this court in Karuram and Ors. v. Omprakash and Ors. AIR. 1939 M.P. 101.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 has been enacted repealing the Act of 1939 and that Section 140 of the new Act corresponds to Section 92-A of the Act of 1939 with the difference that whereas Section 92-A of the Act of 1939 provided that the amount of compensation payable in respect of the death of any person resulting from a motor accident shall be a fixed sum of Rs. 15, 000/- the new Act provides for a compensation of Rs. 25, 000/- instead of Rs. 15, 000/-.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Co., has submitted that the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation payable in respect of the death of deceased Mohbai due to motor accident on the principle of fault and has accordingly fixed the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants as Rs. 6000/- only and that Section 92-A of the Act of 1939 or section 140 of the Act of new Act of 1988 although a measure of Welfare legislation, is not retrospective in operation and as such, is not applicable to the instant case.

The liability to pay compensation in respect of death due to motor accident is based on the principle of fault at common law. But liability to pay compensation on the principle of no fault has come to be provided statutorily by Section 92-A of the Act of 1939 and now u/s 140 of the new act of 1988 as a measure of social justice in order to meet to some extent the responsibility of society to the deaths and injuries caused in road accidents. Incidental, the sum of Rs. 15, 000/- as provided in Section 92-A of the Act of 1939 or the modified sum of Rs. 25, 000/- as provided in Section 140 of the new Act of 1988 represents the minimum compensation for boss of human life in the estimate of the Parliament. This legislative norm as set forth by Parliament for minimum compensation for the loss of life, arising from motor accident, in my opinion, ought to serve as guide. Line for the courts while adjudicating motor accident claims or hearing appeals on the question of quantum of compensation. In view of this, it is not necessary to decide the question whether or not Section 92.A is retrospective in its operation. In this connection learned Counsel for the appellants has cited a decision of this court in Rukmabai v. Ramlal and Anr. reported in 1988 (1) T.A.C. 469 and has placed reliance on the following observations therein:

There is, however, an important aspect which must be noticed on the provision of Section 92-A by providing a minimum compensation of Rs. 15, 000 for the loss of life resulting from a motor accident, the legislative norm for minimum compensation for loss of life has been set-forth and while award in just compensation for the death resulting from a motor accident, the Tribunal or the High Court in a peal, cannot lose sight of the fact that assessment of compensation on merits which is largely based on guess-work, must be in accordance with the principle that compensation for loss of life has to be at least Rs. 15, 000-Wliile accepting the principle that compensation in respect of the death resulting from a motor accident, must be atleast Rs. 15, 000, it would not be reasonable to make a distinction in determining (sic) sensation in respect of the death by motor accident whether (sic) after coming into force of Section 92-A.

(sic). discussion and having noticed Section 140 of the Motor (sic) minimum compensation for the loss of human life as Rs. (sic) would be a just compensation payable to the appellant (sic)deceased Mohbai.

(sic) partly allowed.

(sic) shall stand modified in as-much-as instead of a sum

(sic) annum from the date of the claim petition till

(sic), the appellants Claimants shall be entitled to

(sic)as compensation with interest @ 6% per annum

(sic) Counsel fee Rs. 250/- if certified.