*HONOURABLE
Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
+M.A.C.M.A.
No.424 of 2011
% Dated
16.12.2013
Between:
# B.Shanker and another ...Appellants
and
$ APSRTC Administrative Office
RTC Cross Roads, Musheerabad
Hyderabad and another ….Respondents
! Counsel
for the Appellants : Smt.A.Chayadevi
^ Counsel
for respondents :
None appeared
< GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
1) 2010 ACJ page 99
2) 1965(1) All.E.R-563
3) 1963(2) All.E.R.432
4) 1969(1) All.E.R.555
5) 1995 ACJ 366(SC)
6) 2010 ACJ page 99
7) (2005) 6 SCC 236
8) 2009 ACJ 1298
9) 2013(4) ALT 35(SC)
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.NO.424 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
The Claimants, parents of deceased by
name Master B.Chanti, filed this appeal,
having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum–IV Additional Chief Judge-FAC X Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in
M.V.O.P.No.2561 of 2006 dated 29.01.2009, awarding compensation of Rs.65,000/-(Rupees
sixty five thousand only) as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh
only), against respondent Nos.1 and 2 viz., APSRTC (for short ‘Corporation’) for
enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2.
Heard Smt. A. Chaya Devi, learned counsel for the appellants. Both the respondents, who were served with
notice are called absent with no representation and thus taken as heard for
their absence to decide on merits and perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as
arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.
3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal in nutshell are
that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and
probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal erred in arriving a wrong
conclusion on the quantum of compensation and awarded a very meager amount
instead of awarding as claimed and prayed for and hence to allow the appeal by
enhancing and awarding full compensation as prayed for of Rs.3,00,000/- under
several heads including loss of future dependency, love and affection, loss of
estate and funeral expenses etc., by relied upon a decision reported in Manjudevi
Vs.Musafir paswan[1]
of Delhi High Court.
4).Now the points that arise for
consideration in the appeal are:
1.
Whether
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and requires interference
by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what
enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest?
2.
To what result?
POINT-1:
5.
The facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this
appeal are that, on 29.10.2006 due to the rash
and negligent driving of the rider of the crime vehicle (APSRTC Bus bearing No.
AP 10Z 3080) that belongs to the respondent, the same hit the deceased boy by
name B.Chanti, S/o B.Shankar, aged 7 years, while crossing the road, as a
result he fell down and the bus ran over him and he died on the spot, which
occurrence is covered by Ex.A.1 First Information Report in Cr.No.96 of 2006
under Section 304-A IPC and Ex.A.4 charge sheet. The Tribunal from the oral and
documentary evidence on record awarded compensation in all of Rs.65,000/- against
respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly, to be entitled by the claimants.
6. Before coming to decide, what is
just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, It is apt to state that
perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or
frame that has been battered and shattered, nor relieve from a pain suffered as
stated by Lord Morris. In Ward v. James[2],
it was observed by Lord Denning that award of damages in personal injury cases
is basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in
comparable cases. Thus, in a case involving loss of limb or its permanent
inability or impairment, it is difficult to say with precise certainty as to
what composition would be adequate to sufferer. The reason is that the loss of
a human limb or its permanent impairment cannot be measured or converted in
terms of money. The object is to
mitigate hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal
representatives due to sudden demise. Compensation awarded should not be
inadequate and neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be
no exact uniform rule in measuring the value of human life or limb or
sufferance and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at, by precise
mathematical calculation, but amount recoverable depends on facts and
circumstances of each case. Upjohn LJ in Charle red House Credit v. Tolly[3]
remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it
is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry v. Cleaver[4]
observed that to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is
invariably difficult without some guess work but no other process can be
devised than that of making a monitory assessment though it is impossible to equate the money
with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. The Apex Court in R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest
Control (India) Private Limited[5]
at paragraph No.12 held that in its very nature whatever a Tribunal or a
Court is to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves
some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy
linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be
viewed with objective standard. Thus, in most of the cases involving Motor
Accidents, by looking at the totality of the circumstances, an inference may
have to be drawn and a guess work has to be made even regarding compensation in
case of death, for loss of dependent and estate to all claimants; care,
guidance, love and affection especially of the minor children, consortium to
the spouse, expenditure incurred in transport and funerals etc., and in case of
injured from the nature of injuries, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings
particularly for any disability and also probable expenditure that has to be
incurred from nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment required.
The appeal claim herein is thus confined to the quantum from the contention of
not correctly taken the multiplicand and multiplier with future prospects in
earnings and on the quantum of consortium and funeral expenses etc., in
arriving a sum for awarding just compensation.
7. From the above legal principles and
in the factual matrix of case, there is no contest by the APSRTC-respondents
despite served. The very claim petition itself mentioned that the claimants are
entitled besides no fault liability of Rs.50,000/- additional sums i.e. also
reproduced in para-8(i) at page 4 of the award by the Tribunal, out of
compensation claimed by the parents-claimants of the deceased boy of seven
years, their claim on other heads is Rs.7,000/- towards funeral expenses,
Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate but
the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- only under the above heads and what the
Tribunal arrived in all is of Rs.65,000/-. To attack the award of the Tribunal,
the decision of Delhi High Court in Manjudevi Vs.Musafir paswan[6]
placed reliance has no relevancy on facts but for to say the quantum is low
from the facts that when the child in the womb is also a juristic person under
law entitled to no fault liability sum of Rs.50,000/- under the Act, as the minimum of compensation amount to be
awarded. Thus by taking consideration of the fact that for a child below ten
years is with uncertainty with life and
even there is some guess work is necessary to be done to arrive compensation. Keeping in mind the parents lost the future
breadwinner besides love and affection, for 7 years child with Rs.20,000/- per
year proportionate increase to the minimum of Rs.50,000/- is just thereby the
total compensation of Rs.50,000/-+ Rs.1,40,000/-+Rs.10,000/- towards funeral
expenses and transport charges and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and in all Rs.
2,05,000/- is just compensation against the respondents.
8.
Coming to the rate of interest at 7%p.a.
awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, from the settled proposition of law TN
Transport Corporation v. Raja Priya[7],
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[8]
and from the latest expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir
Singh[9]
(supra), interest is awarded by modifying
7%p.a. to 7½%p.a. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered.
POINT -2:
9.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the Award of the
Tribunal on quantum of compensation by enhancing the same from Rs.65,000/- to
Rs.2,05,000/-(Rupees two lakh five thousand only) with interest at 7½% p.a.
from date of the claim petition till realization/deposit with notice.
Respondents, who jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, are
directed to deposit within one month said amount with interest from the date of
petition (after deduction of any amount paid so far pursuant to the award of
the Tribunal), failing which the claimants can execute and recover. On such deposit or execution and recovery,
Claimants are permitted to withdraw the same. There is no order as to costs.
________________________
Dr. B.SIVA
SANKARA RĀO, J
Date: 16-12-2013
VVR
Note: L.R. copy to be marked: Yes/No.
