Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Mohd. Umar And Another v. Anand Kumar Verma And Others

Mohd. Umar And Another v. Anand Kumar Verma And Others

(High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)

First Appeal From Order Defective No. 547 of 2013 | 24-05-2013

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 17.12.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sitapur in Claim Petition No. 202/2012 for the enhancement of the compensation, awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.03.2012 at about 17.15, the deceased Ikrar was going on cycle to purchase the grocery items. When he reached main Sindholi Road, the driver of the Car No. UP 34 K/8949 who was driven the car rashly and negligently hit the cycle of the deceased near Puliya. The deceased fallen down and he was taken to the District Hospital, Sitapur from where he was referred to the Medical College. On 21.04.2012, the deceased died in the hospital. A Case Crime No. 102/2012 was registered against the driver of the car. The claimants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, who has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,01,100/-. Not being satisfied, the claimants-appellants have filed the present appeal for the enhancement of the compensation.

3. With this background, Sri R.R. Srivastava, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the deceased was not educated, but he was a hawker and selling the juice. The deceased was earning of Rs. 250/- per day. Notional income was not considered by the Tribunal. The compensation amount is meager. The deceased was self-employed person though he was a minor.

4. None appeared on behalf of the opposite parties.

5. After hearing learned counsel and on perusal of the record, it appears that on 19.03.2012, the accident took place as mentioned above. The event of the accident and involvement of the Alto Car No. U.P. 34 K/8949 are not in dispute. On the date of accident, the car was insured by M/s. Reliance Insurance Company. On the day of accident, the policy was alive. The driver of the vehicle, Sri Sandeep Srivastava was holding a valid driving license.

6. Only dispute in the present appeal is pertaining to the quantum. It is claimed by the appellants that the deceased was self-employed person though he was a minor. From the medical report, his age was determined as 11-12 years. Thus, he was a child of 11-12 years and he cannot be self-employed anywhere as per the law. He cannot be a self-employed person, as the child can not be engaged in any occupation or employment. So, the income claimed by the appellants-claimants cannot be taken into consideration. If he was engaged in the self-employment, than the claimants-appellants are responsible and can be punished as per law.

7. In these circumstances, it is evident that on the date of accident, the deceased was a minor child of 11-12 years and was not earning. When it is so, then the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation which includes the funeral charges, mental agony, etc.

8. Needless to mentioned that in State of Haryana and Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and Ors.; 2003 (7) SCC 484 , [LQ/SC/2003/749] it was held as under:

"7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be "just and reasonable". It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be just compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of just compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary, if it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC [1999(1) SCC 90].

9. There are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totality of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or the splendour of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape-measure. The determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non-earning person. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents.

10. In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the childs life-time. But this will not necessarily bar the parents claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. This principle was laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. v. Jenkins (1913) AC 1, and Lord Atkinson said thus:

".....all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact-there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first that the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can I think, be drawn from circumstances other than and different from them."

11. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears reasonable and the same is hereby sustained along with reasons mentioned therein.The amount, deposited in this Court, if any, shall be transmitted to the concerning Tribunal within a month. The concerned Tribunal is directed to proceed with the award in accordance with law.

12. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.

Advocate List

  • For Petitioner : R.R. Srivastava

  • Anuj Kumar Srivastava, Advocates, for the Appellant;

Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA
Eq Citations
  • (2013) 31 LCD 1518
  • LQ/AllHC/2013/1830
Head Note

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 168 — Compensation — Death of minor child — Notional income — Determination of — Held, deceased was a child of 11-12 years and he cannot be self-employed anywhere as per law — He cannot be a self-employed person, as the child can not be engaged in any occupation or employment — So, the income claimed by the appellants-claimants cannot be taken into consideration — If he was engaged in the self-employment, than the claimants-appellants are responsible and can be punished as per law — When it is so, then the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation which includes the funeral charges, mental agony, etc. — The appeal filed by the appellants-claimants is hereby dismissed at the admission stage — Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, S. 110-A (Paras 6 and 11) B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 168 — Compensation — Quantum of — Held, the courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just — What would be ''''just'''' compensation is a vexed question — There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb — Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations — It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any — Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of ''''just'''' compensation which is the pivotal consideration — Though by use of the expression ''''which appears to it to be just a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness — The expression ''''just'''' denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary, if it is not so it cannot be just — Helen C. Rebello, (1999) 1 SCC 90 and State of Haryana and Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 484 , referred to — (Para 8)