HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1369 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
The Claimant, who is no other than
major son of the deceased by name Katukuri Kousalya, filed this appeal, having
been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum–IV Additional District Judge, Warangal, (for
short, ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.703 of 2006 dated 21.03.2007, against
respondent Nos.1 and 2 viz., the owner and the Insurer of the crime vehicle
(jeep), dismissing against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh only),
as prayed for in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle
Act,1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2. Heard Sri Alladil Ravinder, the
learned counsel for the appellant and both the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (owner
and Insurer of the crime jeep) who were served with notice are called absent
with no representation and thus taken them as heard for the absence to decide
on merits and perused the 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 gravely erred in finding that there is no rash and negligent
driving on the part of the driver of the crime jeep of the 1st
respondent in the claim petition insured with the 2nd respondent
bearing No.AP 36 V 5004 under Ex.B.1 policy, that the Tribunal should have seen
that there is a final report filed by police showing driver of the crime jeep for whose rash and
negligent driving the occurrence took place breathed last and P.W.2 eye witness
also deposed in this regard, hence, to allow the claim as prayed for before the
Tribunal.
4).Now the points that arise for
consideration in the appeal are:
1. Whether the award passed by the
Tribunal dismissing the claim of the claimant for compensation is unsustainable
and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal to set aside
the same if so, to what extent the claimant is entitled for compensation with
what rate of interest and with what observations?
2.
To what result?
POINT-1:
5.
The facts of the case are that, on 15.11.2003 the deceased by name K.Kousalya
along with others was proceeding on foot and when they reached in front of the
house of one Adepu Murali of Iyanavolu, due to rash and negligent driving at
high speed of the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 36 V 5004 belongs
to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent
covered by Ex.B.1 policy, to avoid the collusion with RTC bus, lost control and
dashed against the deceased K.Kousalya and others, as a result they all
received injuries and the mother of the claimant died while undergoing treatment
at MGM Hospital, Warangal, which occurrence is covered by Ex.A.1 First
Information Report. The Tribunal, basing on the oral and documentary evidence
on record, dismissed the claim petition.
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[1],
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[2]
remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it
is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry v. Cleaver[3]
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[4]
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 legal position, coming to the factual matrix, the claim petition
averments as well as the evidence of the claimant-P.W.1 is that his mother
along with some other labourers while proceeding on foot at about 6.15 p.m.
after their work on 15.11.2003 reached near house of one Adepu Murali of
Iyanavolu, the driver of the crime jeep of 1st respondent insured
with the 2nd respondent, while coming in rash and negligent manner
with high speed, in avoiding collusion with RTC bus lost control and dashed the
claimant’s mother and other persons proceeding on foot and his mother having
sustained grievous injuries breathed lost while undergoing treatment at Mahatma
Gandhi hospital, Warangal. P.W.1 placed reliance upon Ex.A.1FIR in Cr.No.157 of
2007, Ex.A.6 final report, Ex.A.4 crime detailed form besides Ex.A.5 M.V.I.report, which speak
driver of the jeep also succumbed to the injuries in the accident, that was the
result of the rash and negligent driving of said jeep driver. The P.M. report
also shows the injuries sustained by the deceased from which she was succumbed,
as outcome therefrom. Besides P.W.1
evidence with reference to the documents supra, there is evidence of P.W.2 eye
witness also in proof of the accident was the result of the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the jeep. Thus the Tribunal went wrong in saying the
accident was not proved by not properly appreciating the evidence much less
there is in fact no contra evidence on
behalf of the respondents to disprove the evidence. Thereby, suffice to hold that the accident
was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep of the 1st
respondent insured with the 2nd respondent covered by Ex.B.1 policy
to make them liable to satisfy the claim of the claimant.
8.Now
coming to the quantum of the compensation, the claimant is major son and only class-I legal
representative of his deceased-mother, however, no way dependant on the
deceased-mother; but for to say he is the person who suffered from the death of
his mother, having lost domestic and other contribution of her earnings,
besides elderly advice, mother is a mother and there is no substitute for her in
the world. However, in arriving quantum
of compensation from the claimant is
having independent means and not totally dependant on the deceased, his
earnings also criteria and thereby even
taken the earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident at Rs.3,000/-
from the claimant is not solely dependent on her but for lost contribution from her as detailed supra, it
can be taken at Rs.2,000/- per annum and if half deducted towards personal
expenses, it comes to Rs.1,000/- p.m. x 12 x 12,000/- of the age as per Ex.A.3 PM
report about 55 years the multiplier i.e. applicable is 10 as it is upto 55, above
56 it is 9. Then it comes to Rs.1,20,000/-, for funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
loss of estate of Rs.10,000/- maximum, then in all it comes to Rs.1,55,000/-
which the claimant is entitled just compensation so to award.
9. Coming to the rate of interest, from
the settled proposition of law in TN Transport Corporation v. Raja Priya[5]
and Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[6]
and from the latest expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Ranabir
Singh[7], interest is awarded at 7½% per annum
therefrom, hence, awarded 7.5% p.a. on the compensation awarded. Accordingly, Point-1 is answered.
POINT -2:
10.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, setting aside the dismissal of the
claim by the Tribunal, awarding compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees one lakh
fifty five thousand only) with interest at 7½% per annum from date of the claim
petition till realization/deposit with notice. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, are directed to deposit
within one month said amount with interest from the date of petition, failing
which the claimant can execute and recover.
On such deposit or execution and recovery, the claimant is at liberty to
move the Tribunal for further withdrawal, if any. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.
________________________
Dr. B.SIVA
SANKARA RĀO, J
Date: 11.02.2014
VVR
