Karuram v. Omprakash

(1.) This appeal under S.110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (for short the Act) is directed against the award dt. 30-7-83 made by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur (for short the Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 22 of 1979.

(2.) The appellant Karuram who is the husband of the victim Nandibai and their three sons, one of them Parasram then a minor aged 12 years filed a claim petitioner on 2-7-79 against the driver, the owner and the insurer of the vehicle claiming Rs. 51,500/- as compensation alleging that the accident was occasioned due to the negligence of the driver of the truck and that Nandibai and the young one of a buffalo died as a result thereof.

(3.) The respondents contested the claim. According to the driver, the accident was occasioned by a police jeep and he has been falsely involved. The quantum of compensation was also assailed.

(4.) On the material placed by the parties, on record, the learned Tribunal has held that the accident was due to negligence and the deceased was working as a labourer and was contributing to the extent of Rs. 4/- per day for the family. Applying a multiplier of 10, the appellants were held entitled to Rs. 14,400/- as compensation. It further awarded Rs. 3000/- towards loss of consortium. After deduction of 25% due to lump sum payment and uncertainties of life, an award in the sum of Rs. 13,000/- in addition to Rs. 150/- towards compensation for loss of the young buffalo has been made.

(5.) For the purpose of this appeal, it is no longer in dispute that Smt. Nandibai, aged 50 years died as a result of the motor accident which took place on 13-1-79 the offending vehicle being the truck bearing registration No. DHG 5606 which at the relevant time belonged to the respondent 2 Harbanslal and was being driven by his driver Omprakash, the respondent 1 and that the said vehicle was insured with the respondent 3 against third party risks. The finding that the accident was occasioned due to the negligence of the driver has also not been assailed.

(6.) The contention of the appellants learned counsel in this court is that the compensation awarded is, in the circumstances, too inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that on the material on record, the award cannot be characterised as so inadequate as to call for interference.

(7.) The point for consideration is whether the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced.

(8.) Under the Act, the tribunal is to determine just compensation. It is rightly remarked that in determination of compensation arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master.

(9.) It may be pointed out that S.92-A was inserted in the Act in 1982 and it provides for a minimum compensation in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- in case there is loss of human life. Though the provision has no retrospective operation so as to entail no fault liability, it can certainly be taken into consideration in determining compensation in cases of fatal accidents. In the decision in Rukmabais case, 1988 Acc CJ 351 it has been observed as under : -

"There is however, an important aspect which must be noticed in the provision of S.92-A while awarding just compensation for the death resulting from a motor accident. The Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, 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 is to be at least Rs. 15,000/-. While accepting the principle that compensation in respect of the death resulting from a motor accident, must be at least Rs. 15,000/- it would not be reasonable to make a distinction in determining compensation in respect of the death by motor accident whether occurring before or after coming into force of S.92-A."

(10.) In the instant case the victim of the accident was a house-wife aged 50 years and was also an earning member. On the material on record, the annual contribution by her towards the family may legitimately be valued at Rs. 2000/- per annum.

(11.) In the decision in Ram Kunwar Bais case, 1988 Acc CJ 47 in relation to the death of a milk-vendor aged 60 years, monthly dependency was assessed at Rs. 150/- and applying the multiplier of 10, the award was enhanced from Rs. 11,500/- to Rs. 19,000/- Therein no deduction for lump sum payment was made considering the fall in the value of money.

(12.) On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances we are of the view that in the present case an amount of Rs. 20,000/inclusive of damage to the property would constitute just compensation.

(13.) In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- and is apportioned as under : - Appellant No. 1 Karuram Rs. 10,000/- Appellant No. 2 Rameshwar Rs. 2,000/- Appellant No. 3 Shankarlal Rs. 2,000/- Appellant No. 4 Parasram Rs. 6,000/- This amount of Rs. 20,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Counsel fee Rs. 200/- if certified. Appeal partly allowed.