HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.88 and 552 OF 2012
COMMON
JUDGMENT:
The appeal
(MACMA No.88 of 2012) is preferred by the respondents-APSRTC of claim petition
claiming as the compensation awarded by the tribunal in MVOP No.2454 of 2008 on
the file of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-I
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad(for short, ‘Tribunal’) dated
02.08.2010 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the
Act’) as excessive and exorbitant and the another appeal (MACMA No.552 of
2012) is preferred by the claimants no other than the parents of the deceased
Komati Vinod aged about 19 years as per the claim petition and 25 years as per
inquest report and about 20 years as per Ex.A.7 Transfer Certificate claimed as
student and graduate and Ex.A.8 certificate as if a tailor under P.W.3, out of
claim of Rs.6,00,000/- since awarded Rs.3,99,000/- with interest at 7½% p.a., of
the same claim petition, claiming as the compensation awarded by the tribunal
is utterly low and not just.
2.
The respondents 3 and 4 are brought on record as legal representatives of 1st
respondent as per orders in C.M.P.No.5685 of 2012 dated 16.10.2012.
3.
Heard Sri K.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant-APSRTC
and Sri C.M.Prakash learned counsel for the claimants in both the appeals.
Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as
arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.
4. The contentions of the APSRTC in their
grounds of appeal and in submissions during course of hearing in nutshell are
that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and
probabilities of the case, that the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is excessive and that there is also contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased that was not taken, hence to reduce. The contention of the
claimants in their appeal and in submissions during course of hearing in
nutshell are that the quantum awarded is utterly low to enhance. Apart from the
above, the learned counsel on both sides contended with regard to the multiplier
adopted, monthly earnings taken and deduction towards personal expenses of
deceased etc., as unjust and to refix.
5.
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 what is just
compensation to arrive and with what rate of interest?
2.
Whether
there is any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also?
3.
To
what result?
6. As the award
covered by the two appeals is one and the same, both appeals taken up together
from said evidence, so also matter on record is one and the same covered by the
evidence relating to the points 1 and 2 are taken up together.
Points
1and 2:
7. The fact
that the accident was taken place on the fateful day on 11.08.2008 at 4.00 p.m.
at K.P.H.B.colony, while the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle involved
in the accident being dashed by the APSRTC bus coming in opposite direction not
in dispute. As per the Ex.A.3 postmortem
report deceased sustained multiple injuries including tyre marks on the body on
the back, abdomen, liver, right knee, liver ruptured. So it shows the crime bus
ran over the deceased. Therefrom the
Tribunal rightly came to conclusion of the accident was not for the fault of
the deceased, motor cycle rider but for of the driver of the crime bus of the RTC,
who got the finder of last opportunity as had he been cautious by applying
brakes, said crush injuries on the back of the deceased could not be the result
thereby there is nothing to say any contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased but for total negligence on the part of the driver of the bus as
concluded by the Tribunal as this appellate Court shall not easily with the
Trial Court findings which are supported by reasons.
8.
Before coming to decide what is just compensation in view of the rival claims,
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.
9.
From the above legal propositions, the deceased was admittedly a bachelor, and
with different versions regarding his age ranging from 19 to 22 even as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[5]
for a person between 15 to 20 as well as 21 to 25 multiplier is 18,
however, once he is a bachelor, it is the age of the mother that is criteria,
which as per the claim petition stated 38 and from the age stated in the
inquest and from bills, the Tribunal taken about 40 years and the multiplier
for a person of 36 to 40 years as per Sarla Verma (supra) supra is 15, and not 16
as taken by the Tribunal. Coming to the earnings of the deceased as per Ex.A.2 inquest
report, the avocation mentioned as student in the claim petition is a student
of B.Sc. When such is the case, it is
not believable the evidence of P.W.3 or the P.W.1 much less to give the value
to the Ex.A.8 salary certificate showing as if he was being worked as a tailor
and got salary of Rs.5,000/- p.m. The
tribunal taken the prospective earnings of the deceased thereby Rs.3,000/- per
month. Once he is a major, as per guidelines in the expression of apex Court in
Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar[6]
that even there is no proof of income and earnings, it can be reasonably
estimated at Rs.3,000/- p.m. for any non-earning member and even for housewife
as domestic contribution. For the accident is dated 11.08.2008 about seven
years after said expression, the earnings can be taken at Rs.3,700/- p.m., the
minimum though no prospective increase therefrom can be given following Rajesh
v. Rajbir Singh[7].
If half deducted being a bachelor
towards personal expenses and not 1/3rd as taken by the Tribunal, it
comes to Rs.1850/-p.m.x12x15 = Rs.3,30,000/- apart from it towards funeral
expenses the claimants are entitled Rs.25,000/-, loss of estate maximum as per
Sarla Verma(supra) Rs.10,000/-(for not
a case of only son) and additional sum
of Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection they having lost son though they got
other children, which comes to Rs.3,75,000/- and thus what the tribunal awarded
is excessive. Accordingly, Points 1 and
2 are answered.
POINT -3:
10. In the result, the appeal MACMA No.88 of 2012
filed by the APSRTC is partly allowed reducing the compensation from
Rs.3,99,000/- to Rs.3,75,000/- but with regard to the claim of contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased is dismissed. The MACMA No.552 of 2012 filed by the
claimants is dismissed. Rest of the terms of the award holds good. There is no
order as to costs in both appeals.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
these appeals shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. B. SIVA
SANKARA RĀO, J
Date:
24.01.2014
VVR
