A.P.S.R.T. Corporation vs Jonnalagadda Venkatarama Sharma

K. Ramaswamy, J.—Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation-Appellant herein is assailing the correctness of the award granting a sum of Rs. 42,000/- to the husband-Respondent herein towards loss of dependency caused due to the death of his wife Vimala Kumari. The facts are as follows:

The deceased Vimala Kumari was travelling in the bus APZ 4230. The bus was going from Kazipet to Vengapahad. Another bus APZ 6602 was coming from the opposite direction. These buses collided on September 4, 1978 at about 3 p.m. between the office of the Divisional Forest Officer and the main gate of the Regional Engineering College, Warangal, as a result of which the deceased died. The Respondent-husband laid the claim on the basis that she was a healthy person, that she passed Intermediate Examination and she also passed Typewriting Lower Grade and appeared for Typewriting Higher Grade and Shorthand Lower Grade and that in fact on the date of occurrence she was going to the Employment Exchange to apply for the post of stenographer in the Posts and Telegraphs Department. It is also stated that she had an offer from a private firm on a monthly salary of Rs. 250/-. She was aged about 26 years and so, she would have survived for another 34 years. He calculated the total loss at Rs. 60,000/-, but restricted the claim to Rs. 50,000/-.

The claimant examined himself as a witness and marked six documents in support of his claim. The Respondent-Corporation examined as many as six witnesses, which is an unusual feature and resisted the claim. However, the Tribunal below on a consideration of the evidence, awarded a sum of Rs. 36,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs. 6,000/- towards loss of consortium. Assailing the said award, as stated earlier, this appeal has been filed by the Corporation.

In this appeal Mr. Harinath, learned standing counsel for the Corporation, has contended that the lower Tribunal is unjustified in awarding such a huge amount of Rs. 42,000/-. It is not stated by the Respondent that he was dependent on the earnings of his wife. On the other hand, he himself is an earning member working in the Engineering College. The deceased had no employment, though she had passed Intermediate and also Typewriting examination. As on the date of occurrence she was not gainfully employed. Exh. A-6 is a letter dated November 21, 1978 from Kakatiya Oil and Nutrients Pvt. Ltd., offering to pay the deceased a salary of Rs. 250/-. This document has no relevance since it was produced after the incident. There is no tangible material on which she could be said to have got a salary of Rs. 250/-. It is also contended that in the petition there is no claim for the loss of consortium. Therefore, the grant of consortium is illegal, and the huge amount of Rs. 36,000/- as compensation is highly excessive.

This case has been coming up for hearing for the last three days. Since none represented the Respondent the matter was adjourned successively for two days and it is now posted today for judgment. Even now none has appeared for the Respondent.

I have gone through the evidence and the entire record, and the reasoning adopted by the lower Tribunal. The admitted facts are that the deceased Vimala Kumari was aged about 26 years. She passed Intermediate and also Typewriting Lower Grade, and she appeared for the Typewriting Higher Grade (English) and Shorthand Lower Grade (English) examinations. It is the claim of the Respondent that she went to attend an interview on that day in the bus and she met with an accident and died in the accident. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the occurrence has not taken place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver, but on account of burst of the tyre. I do not accede to this contention inasmuch as in other connected cases I held that this ghastly occurrence has taken place as a result of reckless driving of the drivers. Therefore, it is held that the deceased died in an accident as a result of the collision of two R.T.C. buses due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers.

The question is the quantum of compensation to which the Respondent-husband is entitled to towards dependency. Admittedly, the deceased was not employed in any gainful employment and she was not earning anything, though she was an educated girl. She passed Intermediate and she also acquired technical qualifications to be appointed as a Typist or a Stenographer. There is a possibility of her getting employment and she would have contributed some amount towards the total pool of family maintenance and support to her husband. There is a possibility of the Respondent herein getting remarried since he is a young man of 36 years. In view of these facts the question is what is the reasonable compensation the Respondent is entitled to.

Mr. Harinath, learned Counsel for the Corporation, relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in M.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. Sudhakar, 1977 ACJ 290 (SC) . In that case the deceased-wife, aged about 23 years, was working as a Physical Instructress and she was earning a sum of Rs. 190/-p.m. at the time of accident. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as damages. On appeal, at the instance of the husband, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000/-. Then the Corporation filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. Gupta, J., speaking for the court held that the deceased would have contributed a sum of Rs. 50/- towards the common pool, which would have been utilised for the lodging and boarding of the family and calculated at that rate the deceased would have contributed a total sum of Rs. 19,000/-. But, however, taking into consideration certain other factors such as uncertainties of life, accelerated payment, etc., their Lordships reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 15,000/-.

It is true that it is not necessary in every case to prove that the deceased was engaged in any gainful employment and was earning any amount. Even the deceased would have rendered domestic service to the family and could have been of assistance to the husband by getting an employment since she was educated and qualified for being appointed as a typist or a stenographer. The loss can be valued in terms of money. While assessing the loss, it is necessary to have regard to the age of the deceased, the possible length of service, the possibility of premature retirement, or set-back in the health, the possibility of not continuing in service due to domestic circumstances, the possibility of premature death, etc. Considering all these factors, the compensation has to be calculated.

In Narain Dass Khanna Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . Chinnappa Reddy, J. awarded a sum of Rs. 12,000/- as compensation for the death of a lady teacher aged about 19 years.

In Friends Field and Road Transaction Co. Vs. Ramesh Chandra and Others, the Madhya Pradesh High Court confirmed the award of Rs. 14,000/- to a domestic lady aged about 19 years.

In Manoharlal Gupta and Others Vs. The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, when a household woman aged about 32 years died, the annual dependency was computed at Rs. 500/-. It was multiplied with 16 multiplier and a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was awarded.

In State of Haryana and Another Vs. Lt. Col. Balbir Singh Hooda, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court reduced the award of compensation from Rs. 21,770/- to Rs. 10,557/- awarded to a deceased housewife.

In view of these decisions and in view of the ratio laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, we have to assess the reasonable amount which the deceased would have contributed and pooled towards the maintenance of the family. As it is already held that she is a qualified lady, the possibility of her getting a gainful employment cannot be easily ruled out. No doubt, Exh. A-6 was issued after the death of the deceased, from a private company allegedly offering to pay Rs. 250/-. Even otherwise, since she is a qualified lady, she would have at least got appointed as a L.D.C./Typist either in the Government service or in private employment and she would have got at least Rs. 300/- p.m., out of which she would have contributed a minimum of Rs. 100/- for the family maintenance to support her husband. Computed at that rate, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 1,200/-. Had she been alive, she would have contributed at least for a period of 16 years and multiplied with 16 multiplier, she would have contributed Rs. 19,200/-. But, since there is a possibility of the Respondent-husband getting remarried and since he is getting a lump sum amount, 1/3 has to be deducted from the total compensation. Thus, the compensation which the Respondent would be entitled to is Rs. 12,800/-.

There is no claim for the loss of consortium in the claim petition. Therefore, the award of Rs. 6,000/- towards loss of consortium is not justified.

In view of the facts stated earlier and in view of the legal position set out, the total compensation which the Respondent would be entitled is Rs. 12,800/-. Setting aside the award of the lower Tribunal, the claimant is awarded a sum of Rs. 12,800/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances each party is directed to bear their own costs.