Savitri Devi and Another vs The Malerkotla Bus Service (P) Ltd. and Others

H.R. Sodhi, J.—In this First Appeal from Order directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab, the sole question that arises for determination is as to the quantum of compensation to which the Appellants are entitled on account of the death of their son Ajay Kumar aged about seventeen years. The facts can be stated in a very narrow compass.

On 19th October, 1960, the fateful day, Ajay Kumar deceased, had gone to the Bazar in the town of Barnala, District Sangrur, on a bicycle and at about 3-45 p.m. he was standing near the pavement with his bicycle when bus No. PNC 996 driven by Gurdial Singh Respondent No. 2, owned by Malerkotla Bus Service Private Ltd. Malerkotla, Respondent No. !, and insured with the Northern India Motor Owners Insurance Company Ltd., Respondent No. 3, coming from the railway station side struck against him. Ajay Kumar, as a result of impact of the mud-guard of the rear wheel, fell on the ground along with his bicycle about three-four feet away from the footpath and the bicycle fell upon him. The bus, it is alleged, was running at a very high speed though the prescribed speed limit in the Bazar was five miles per hour, and the driver did not even blow the horn. He stopped the bus at a distance of 40/45 feet from the place of the accident. The injured was taken in the same bus to the Civil Hospital, Barnala, where his injuries were examined by Dr. Nawal Kishore Dhir, A.W.I. The condition of the injured being serious, he was removed to the Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, where he expired. The impact of the bus against the body of the injured caused internal hemorrhage and in the opinion of the doctor the injuries, especially injury No. 1 which was a contusion in the kidney region in the left of the abdomen, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

The parents who are mother and father of the deceased filed a claim application in respect of this accident or 1st December, 1960, and an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was claimed as damages.

The Respondents denied that the eath was caused as a result of any rash or agligent act of Gurdial Singh Respondent, river of the bus. It was pleaded by them hat the bus was being driven at the speed of five miles per hour because of the rush in the Bazar on account of Diwali festival. The boy, according to these Respondents, was standing on the wrong side of the road and Gurdial Singh driver was blowing the horn. It was pleaded that the bus actually safely passed by the deceased and it had not struck against the deceased. The driver pleaded ignorance about the accident and, stated that he had in fact gone about ten yards from the place of the accident when an alarm was raised and it was then that he came to know that the boy had fallen down with a bicycle. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:

(1) Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of PNC-996 or whether the deceased was negligent himself or he was guilty of contributory negligence, and if so, its effect ?

(2) Whether the policy is void on the ground as alleged in additional plea No. 2 in the written statement filed by Respondent No. 3 (subject to objection by Mr. V.N. Bhatnagar Advocate).

(3) What is the quantum or compensation due, if any, and from whom to whom; and effect of additional plea No. 1 of Respondent No. 3 ?

(4) Relief?

Issue No. (1) was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the Appellants whereas issue No. (2) was found against the Respondents. Under issue No. (3), the quantum of damages was 6xed at Rs. 4,320/- with costs, against the Respondents. It has been directed by the Tribunal that the whole amount awarded by it as compensation shall be paid by the Northern India Motor Owners Insurance Company Ltd., Respondent No. 3, within two months from the date of the award. Hence the present appeal by the Appellants who were dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them.

The incident was witnessed amongst others by Pawan Kumar A. W. 2 and Janeshwar Chand A. W. 4. It is stated by them that at the time of the accident, Ajai Kumar was standing near the pavement with his bicycle. A.W. 4 Janeshwar Chand runs a shop opposite to which the accident took place and is thus a very natural witness. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the eye-witnesses and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rightly accepted the same holding that Gurdial Singh driver, Respondent No. 2. was guilty of rash and negligent driving. This finding of the Tribunal was not seriously contested before me.

As a matter of fact the statement of Gurdial Singh driver, Respondent No. 2, is self-contradictory, who while denying the accident altogether has also pleaded that the death was caused due to the deceased''s own negligence. Gurdial Singh driver is the only witness produced by the Respondents with regard to the incident and his statement as R. W. 3 has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal.

As regards the question of quantum of compensation, it is not disputed that the deceased passed his Matriculation examination of the Punjab University obtaining First Division with as high marks as 627. At the time of his death, he was studying in the F. Sc. class as a Non-Medical student. It is alleged that he took up Science (Non-Medical) Group in order to become an engineer. There is no doubt as to the good health of the deceased. The family to high he belonged is of doctors and engineers. The father of the deceased is a loctor and one of his sisters was studying n the Medical College, Patiaia, whereas his elder brother was a student in Thapar Engineering College, Patiaia, at the time of the accident. I am fully convinced that the deceased was a very brilliant student and could reasonably hope for a great career either as an engineer or otherwise.

In order to establish immediate pecuniary loss caused to the family as a result of the death of the deceased, evidence has been led by the Petitioners to show that the deceased was a helping hand in the shop of his father inasmuch as he was working almost as a compounder in the evening during his spare time. Since a compounder had to be engaged normally on the monthly payment of Rs. 60/- , this saving has bed a considered to be a loss caused to the father as a result of the death of Ajay Kumar. The Tribunal has bean of the view that it could not take into consideration the future prospects of life of the deceased and that it was the utility that he was rendering or likely to render to his parents which could be taken notice of in determining the amount of damages. I am afraid, this approach of the Tribunal is not wholly correct. The matter of future prospects of a career likely to bring more money is certainly linked up with the question of pecuniary help that the Petitioners could reasonably expect from the deceased and which the latter would have rendered. It appears that the evidence of immediate help as a compounder was led in order to show the immediate utility of the deceased to his father at the time of the accident. This assistance, in terms of money, has been valued at Rs. 60/- per month, by the Tribunal, thus making a total of Rs. 720/- per year. The Tribunal has further been of the view that the deceased, after qualifying as an engineer, might have contributed Rs. 30/- per month by way of help to his parents and that this contribution could continue for about ten years or so, as after that the deceased himself would have become a family man has making it difficult for him to render any monetary assistance to his parents. The age of the father of the deceased was fifty-one years at the time of the death of his son Ajay Kumar. The amount of compensation as worked out by the Tribunal is as follows:

Monetary help for ten years at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month after the deceased became an engineer. Rs. 3,600/-

Saving of the salary payable to the compounder because of the help rendered by the deceased. Rs. 720/-

Total: Rs. 4,320/-

The formula applied by the Tribunal in working out the damages is not very happy. It might be correct that the deceased was helping his father during his leisure time in the evening since there was no compounder working in those days, but this is not a good basis for assessing damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. It appears that this evidence was led probably because the Petitioners believed and were so advised that it was the immediate monetary loss caused to the parents that could be taken into consideration in assessing damages. The Tribunal itself also seems to have fallen in the same error. In the circumstances of the instant case, it is really the capability of giving pecuniary advantage to the parents of the deceased which is one of the most important determining factors in assessing damages. The parents, in our society, where the State has practically made no provision for aged, infirm and disabled citizens, do have an expectancy of a reasonable monetary help from their children whatever the status or avocation of the family be. In the instant case, Ajay Kumar was only seventeen years of age at the time of his death and was studying in F. Sc. (Non-Medical) Group. He had secured very high marks in the Matriculation examination and there is every reason to believe that he might have joined the Engineering College or else any avocation in life which would have brought him a reasonably good monthly income. I do not appreciate how the Tribunal has assessed monthly income of Rs. 100/- for the deceased even if he had become an engineer and held that he would have contributed Rs. 30/- only out of that income. A Class IV employee in government service does not get as his total emoluments less than Rs. 125/- per month. The age of Appellant No. 2 was fifty-one years at the time of the accident whereas the deceased was of seventeen years. It can safely be assumed that the deceased could earn a good living at the age of twenty-five years, that is, after eight years, when his father at that time would be of about fifty-nine years of age. I am in respectful agreement with an observation in the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court, reported as Shiv Prasad Gupta v. S.M. Sabir Zaidi 1967 A.C.J. 321, that average span of life in India can safely be assessed at seventy years. There is no evidence in the present case that the family members were short-lived. If the father of the deceased, Appellant No. 2, could live upto the age of seventy years, the deceased could certainly give pecuniary help for at least ten years. The mother of the deceased was about thirty-nine years when the latter met his unfortunate death. If the father dies earlier, the deceased would have helped his mother as well. In such circumstances, it is not possible to calculate damages in a mathematical way and to a sufficient extent speculation does come in. It is, however, quite reasonable to expect that even if the deceased had started with a minimum income of Rs. 200/- per month on attaining the age of twenty five years, whether as an engineer or in any other avocation, he would have been in a position to render monetary help to the tune of Rs. 100/- per month to his aged parents for a period of at least ten years and may be for a longer period of time in view of the fact that his mother was not very aged. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that if the deceased had contributed Rs. 100/- per month towards the maintenance of his parents which is reasonable to expect, the Appellants would have received pecuniary benefit at least to the extent of Rs. 12,000/- . Since the amount is to be paid in lump sum, I would assess the compensation payable by the Respondents at Rs. 10,000/- .

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed with costs and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the amount awarded by it as compensation to the Appellants is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- .