Rameshchandra and Another vs Gurubachan Singh and Others

P.D. Mulye, J.—This appeal filed by the Appellant-claimants, who are the parents of the deceased boy, u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is for enhancement of compensation. The learned Member of the Tribunal on evidence thought it just and proper to award Rs. 8,000/- by way of compensation plus cost and interest though the Appellants had claimed compensation to the true of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

The facts giving rise to this appeal, which are no longer in dispute and as also found proved on evidence by the learned Member of the Tribunal, may be stated, in brief thus:

Truck No CPF 9309 is owned by Respondent No. 1 Gurubachansingh of which Respondent No. 2 Harbhajansingh was the driver on the fateful day of 10.8.79 when the accident occurred. This vehicle was insured with Respondent No. 3 the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company. On that date Respondent No. 2 drove the truck on the Bombay Agra road at Sendhwa in such a rash and negligent manner that the boy Abhimanyu, aged about 7 or 8 years was crushed under the wheels of the truck as a result of which he died. The Appellants, who are the parents of the deceased boy, therefore, filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the ground that their son was studying in fourth class; that he was a brilliant and promising student of whom they had high hopes which have been frustrated as a result of the untimely accident.

The Appellants examined themselves who are husband and wife and parents of the boy. On the basis of this evidence the learned Member of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the said driver. This finding of the learned Member was not challenged before us by the learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 3 Mr. Surjeetsingh. Therefore, it is not necessary to reconsider that evidence.

However, the learned Member of the Tribunal, after considering the evidence of the Appellants came to the conclusion that considering the facts and circumstances of the case a sum of Rs. 8,000/- would be the just and reasonable compensation.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the deceased boy who was aged 7 or 8 years was an intelligent child, was healthy having good physique and they had high hopes from him as a bright student as they wanted to see that he becomes an officer in the Indian Army. It was, therefore, submitted that on account of this untimely death as a result of the accident the Appellants have suffered mentally a great shock. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the compensation awarded is too low and deserves to be enhanced.

On the other hand the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 contended that ordinarily there should be no interference in the award unless it is pointed out that the finding of the learned Member of the Tribunal is perverse or that he has failed to consider or has ignored any material evidence. He, therefore, submitted that this is not a fit case for enhancement of compensation.

After hearing the learned Counsel and after going through the case law cited on behalf of both the parties; we are of opinion that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- would be the just and reasonable compensation, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It is no doubt true that normally there should be no interference in the quantum of compensation because on the basis of the authorities cited on behalf of both the parties the quantum of compensation has always differed, the grounds, reasons and circumstances being different. However, also considering the fact that the Appellants who are the parents of the boy are educated persons that the boy was studying in school that his career having been marred on account of this accident as also considering the loss suffered by them coupled with the fact that the Appellants had high hopes from him on account of his intelligence, we are of opinion that barring uncertainties of life as also the fact that the value of money is going down, it would be fair, just and proper to enhance the compensation already awarded by Rs. 7,000/- more.

In the result this appeal succeeds partly. The award is modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 8,000/- the Appellants are awarded a total compensation of Rs. 15,000/-.But considering the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their respective costs of this appeal.