Babulal vs Dayabhai and Company and Others

P.D. Mulye, J.—This appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Gangabai u/s 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 27-11-1972 passed in Claim Case No. 3 of 1969, whereby the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Nimar, Mandleshwar has awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,620/-, costs and interest at six per cent per annum from the date of award till realisation, though compensation claimed was Rs. 67,000/-.

Briefly stated the facts material and relevant for the decision of this case are that the deceased Gangabai met with an accident on 15-5-1969 near Jhanda Chowk, Barwani at 3.30 p.m. when she was run over by the passenger bus No. M.P.F. 8395, which belonged to Respondent No. 7. It is alleged that the bus was driven by either Manubhai or resondent No. 8 Mohansingh. According to the Appellants while the deceased Gangabai was passing through Jhanda Chowk towards vegetable market from east to west, she was knocked down by the bus No. M.P.F. 8395, when she had hardly crossed about 7 feet of the road, which had width about 10 feet. It was alleged that the bus came with an excessive speed driven in rash and negligent manner without blowing any horn with result that the deceased Gangabai dashed against the front portion of the bus due to which she received injuries as a result of which she died instantaneously.

Appellant No. 1, who is the husband of Gangabai and Appellants Nos. 2 to 7, who are her children, filed the present claim petition for Rs. 67,000/-.

The Respondents in their written statement denied the claimant''s allegations and attributed the blame to the negligence of the deceased herself and thus denied their liability.

The learned Tribunal after evidence found that the claimants are entitled to an award of Rs. 4,620/- only. Hence this appeal in which the only question is whether the claimants have been adequately paid the compensation or not.

As the finding regarding the manner in which the accident took place has not been challenged before us on behalf of the Respondents, it is not necessary for us to consider in details the evidence adduced by the claimants regarding the happening of the accident. The Respondents did not examine the bus driver to show how actually the accident took place. However, the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimants has found that the speed of the bus at the time of the accident was excessive, the driver had not blown the horn and the bus driver while driving the bus had not taken out with care and caution, which was expected of him more so when he was driving through a city road on which pedestrains were also walking. It has been found that the bus driver failed to drive the bus in a careful manner and take the care and caution, which he was expected to take while driving the same through the city on a road, which was narrow and consequently we do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Member on this point.

The only point urged on behalf of the Appellants before us was that considering the death of Gangabai due to the accident, the compensation awarded to them is quite meagre and not substantial. As regards the damages claimed, the only evidence in this regard is of Appellant No. 1 Babulal, the husband of the deceased Gangabai. The learned Member on evidence has found that at the time of the accident the deceased Gangabai was about 40 years old. It is in the evidence of Babulal that the deceased was helping Appellant No. 1 in his business of sewing and stitching as a tailor and the average income of Babulal himself from this business was Rs. 2/- to Rs. 3/- per day. According to this witness, the deceased Gangabai was helping him in the working of sewing and stitching and though it was alleged that she herself was earning about Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per month, the same has been rightly disbelieved in face of the evidence of Babulal himself, whose income according to his own statement, did not exceed Rs. 2/- to Rs. 3/- per day and, therefore it is difficult to believe that the monthly income of the deceased Gangabai from this business exceeded the income of Babulal. However, the learned Member on a fair assessment has taken the figure of Rs. 90/- calculated at the rate of Rs. 3/- per day, as also the maximum income of the deceased Gangabai. The evidence further indicates that the monthly expenses of the deceased Gangabai for herself could not be less than Rs. 80/- per month and, therefore, at best the pecuniary loss suffered by the Appellants could not be more than Rs. 20/- per month due to the death of Gangabai. As regards the family longevity, it has also been found that the longevity in their family could be about 70 years. Still considering the nature of work of stitching and sewing, the deceased could at best carry on the same or help the Appellant upto the age of 60 years. In other words, it has been found that the deceased Gangabai thus could continue to earn for a period of about 20 years and accordingly the learned Member thought it proper to award a total compensation of Rs. 4,800/- covering a period of 20 years at the rate of Rs. 240/- per year and deducting therefrom 10 per cent on account of future uncertainties he arrived at the figure: of Rs. 4,320/-, which thus appears to be quite reasonable considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It may be noted that the Appellants have not claimed any amount by way of compensation for the loss of company of the deceased nor there is an iota of evidence to that effect. In fact the Appellants have claimed an amount of Rs. 1,000/- for the expenditure incurred on the milk by which one of the infant child of the deceased was fed. In our opinion though on this account no amount of compensation could be awarded in a claim petition, still the learned Member has been charitable and good enough to award a sum of Rs. 300/- on this account.

In these circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded cannot be said to be unreasonable and the Appellants as the legal representatives of the deceased Gangabai are rightly entitled to receive the same.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances, parties are directed to bear their respective costs of this appeal.