Angels Travels vs K. Chikkayya Naik and Others

M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.—This appeal is by the owner of the motor vehicle bearing registration mark KET 3229 against the compensation awarded to the claimants in M.V.C. No. 315 of 1984 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and District Judge, Mangalore.

The said case came to be disposed of along with other cases in view of the fact that the vehicle belonging to the appellant-owner was involved in an accident with the other motor vehicle bearing registration mark MYG 4732 near Karnataka Bank at Kumbasi on National Highway No. 17, when the motor vehicle bearing registration mark MYG 4732 was proceeding towards Koteswar. The bus belonging to the appellant-owner before us was dangerously driven and dashed against the other motor vehicle MYG 4732 as a result of which several persons were injured and some died. One of the persons who died was the son of the claimants in M.V.C. No. 315 of 1984. The claimants are the parents of the deceased.

It will be useful at this stage to state that petitioners in M.V.C. Nos. 310, 311, 312, 313 and 314 of 1984 were all members of the family, who were travelling in the same auto-rickshaw in which the son of the claimant in M.V.C. No. 311 of 1984, whose husband K. Chikkayya Naik, the other claimant in M.V.C. No. 315 of 1984, was travelling. They pleaded that the other vehicle bearing registration No. KET 3229 was rashly and negligently driven causing the collision and in that circumstance on account of the death of their son they claimed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- under various heads. In view of the involvement of the whole family except Chikkayya Naik, in the accident, common evidence was led and the cases were clubbed together and disposed of.

It is seen from the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mangalore, that as many as 5 witnesses were examined for the claimants in M.V.C. No. 315 of 1984, which included the father, the first claimant in M.V.C. No. 315 of 1984; his son-in-law, the claimant in M.V.C. No. 310 of 1984; his daughter, the claimant in M.V.C. No. 313 of 1984; the mother, who was also a claimant in M.V.C. No. 311 of 1984 and one Dr. Sudhakar Shetty. They also got marked as many as 34 documents in support of their respective claims. Exhs. P-30 to P-34 are some of the important documents, which related to the death of Manjayya Naik, in respect of whose death the claim was made in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as aforementioned in M.V.C. No. 315 of 1984 by his parents.

On the evidence in record including the sketch of the scene of the accident, it was found that the appellant''s vehicle was on the wrong side of the road when the collision took place and therefore negligence was pinned on the driver of the appellant''s vehicle. It is in that circumstance the liability was fastened on the owner and the insurer of that vehicle. On that aspect of the matter no arguments have been advanced before us to question the finding recorded.

The point urged before us by Mr. K.K. Vasanth, learned counsel for the appellant, was with reference to the quantum awarded under the head ''loss of dependency'' and the quantum awarded under the head ''medical expenses''. He has also questioned the awarding of Rs. 5,000/- under the head ''pain and suffering''. In other words, his arguments have been directed towards the reduction of the total sum of Rs. 81,000/- awarded together with interest thereon by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mangalore.

In so far as the argument relating to the award under ''loss of dependency'' to the parents is concerned, we are satisfied that the unit of multiplier adopted by the Tribunal was the unit arrived at following a decision of this court in H.T. Bhandary Vs. Muniyamma, We had occasion to examine the correctness of the application of the ratio decidendi of that case recently in another case in similar circumstances. Following the latest Supreme Court decisions we have taken the view that the multiplier method devised in Bhandary''s case and followed by us and many of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in Karnataka had resulted in considerable loss to the dependants having regard to the method adopted by the other High Courts as well as by the Supreme Court in arriving at the unit of multiplier. In the result, despite the plea by the counsel that the parents had other sources of income; that the deceased was not employed at the time of the accident; but only had made contribution in the preceding two years for the maintenance of the family as per evidence; we find is not adequate reason for us to interfere with the award under that head. Had the method adopted by the Supreme Court in Jyotsna Dey and Others Vs. State of Assam and Others, been followed, the multiplier should have been 32 and not 12. Therefore, we find that substantial justice has been done by awarding Rs. 36,000/-. We make this observation without prejudice to taking a different view in the event the claimants present an appeal for enhancement. Therefore, we must reject the arguments advanced for reducing the pecuniary loss or the loss of dependency fixed at Rs. 36,000/-.

It was next urged that the amount of Rs. 40,000/- awarded for medical treatment and incidental expenses was unsupported by documents when the doctor himself was not examined in regard to the payment of fees and the father of the deceased, PW 3, had made exaggerated claim in regard to payment of doctor''s fees, medical expenses, etc.

We find from para 60 of the judgment of the Tribunal that the learned District Judge took pains to analyse the evidence on record. He did not believe PW 3''s version that he had paid Rs. 35,000/- to the doctor who attended on Manjayya Naik before he died. He took into account that the doctor charged only Rs. 10,000/- as evidenced by some of the bills including Exh. P-22 produced in that behalf. SI. No. 30 in Exh. P-22 also is a bill, so is Sl. No. 29 in Exh. P-22 given by the Vinayaka Clinic and Nursing Home for Rs. 32,614/-. Therefore, giving some margin for any error, he awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards medical treatment and incidental expenses though the sum should have been larger. If the bills in regard to the payment to doctor and the clinic charges were added up, because the total amount under Exh. P-22 was Rs. 35,971.85 and if payment to the doctor at Rs. 10,000/-was accepted, then the amount under that head, i.e., medical and incidental expenses should have been in the region of Rs. 45,000/-and more. We, therefore, find that there is no error committed by the Tribunal in arriving at the figure Rs. 40,000/-, which included the expenses incurred by the parents other than medical expenses, such as travel to the hospital and back to their residence time and again during the period their son was under treatment for 7 days in the hospital before he died. We, therefore, do not propose to interfere with that sum. We reject the arguments advanced by the learned counsel.

What remains is the award of Rs. 5,000/-under the head ''pain and suffering'', which in the light of the discussion made in para 59 of the judgment is prima facie not tenable, but we nevertheless sustain the award for a different reason. Normally in this country the award under the head ''pain and suffering'' is only for the injured though in case of death of a young child in accident we award to the parents for shock and loss of life of their child as the consequential pain and suffering. It is strange that we have not thought of awarding under the same head for the dependant or others when the death is not immediate. Whether the person dies in accident immediately on the spot or subsequently in a hospital or at home is of no consequence to the parents who are survivors of the victim of the accident. The pain and suffering is the same as in the case of a child which should not be offset by the amount awarded under the head ''loss of dependency''. The loss of dependency can never compensate the pain and suffering that the parents suffer on hearing the death of their son or daughter or husband or wife as the case may be. Even there are cases where the dependants are near and dear relatives who visit the hospital time and again and see the suffering of the victim, which subjects them to undergo the agony of watching the process of death enveloping the victim of the accident. This cannot be overlooked by courts as it is human in nature and character. We cannot reduce ourselves to the level of lower order of animals to whom death and birth are more or less casual. We are more highly evolved species having emotional attachment to children and relatives. When this attachment is severed the resultant pain and suffering to the survivors of the victim also must necessarily be compensated. We, therefore, sustain the award of Rs. 5,000/- under the head ''pain and suffering'' for the reason we have given as if it is an award made for the suffering of the parents who looked after the deceased during his confinement in the hospital.

We, therefore, feel that there is justice in the total sum awarded subject to the reservation we have made in case an appeal is filed by the claimants.

This appeal, therefore, is dismissed as devoid of merit.