AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The claimant who is dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 121/1976 is
the Appellant herein. On 6.9.1975 one Chandrasekar, the son of Appellant was about to board the bus (MSQ 7701) belonging to the Pallavan
Transport Corporation at about 4 00 p.m. at Sterling road bus stop. The bus is said to have moved before the deceased could get into it, as a
result of which he fell down and was run over by the rear wheel of the said bus and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries. On the ground that the
accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Pallavan Transport Corporation bus by its driver, the mother of the deceased
Chandrasekar filed a claim petition claiming in all a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation.
The said claim was resisted by the Respondent, the Pallavan Transport Corporation, contending that the deceased was hit by the bus in the
movement of the crowd, that he was caught in the midst of the crowd and was pushed before the bus and that there was no rashness or negligence
on the part of the driver of the bus. The Petitioner was therefore, not entitled to any compensation. In any event, the compensation claimed was
excessive.
On the rival pleadings, the Tribunal set down the following two questions for consideration:
(1) Was the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the Respondent by its driver ?
(2) To what, if any, compensation, is the Petitioner entitled ?
On the first question, the Tribunal after considering in detail the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the accident was solely due to the
rash and negligent driving of the Respondent''s bus by its driver and therefore the Respondent is liable to pay compensation. That finding of the
Tribunal has become final and it is not under challenge before us. On the second question which relates to the quantum of compensation, the
Tribunal held that a sum of Rs. 17,000/- will be a fair and reasonable compensation for the death of the deceased. The Appellant has come before
this Court in appeal contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too meagre and the case warrants considerable enhancement of
the compensation.
In this case, the deceased was 18 years and he was a student in the B.A. class in Pachayappa''s College at the time of his death as is evident
from Exh. P. 5, the communication received from the Principal of the College condoling the death of the deceased. The deceased had not started
earning at the time of his death. PW 1 is the father of the deceased and he is a film producer and distributor. He is earning a lakh of rupees per
annum from his film business as seen from Exh. P. 1 and P. 2, the income tax assessment order and the receipt for payment of tax respectively.
The Petitioner''s case is that the father of the deceased is an established film producer and distributor and so the deceased would have had the
advantage of the wisdom and experience of his father and therefore, he would have entered the cine field and earned several lakhs of rupees. It is
also her case that the life of the deceased has been insured for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh by the father and that in all probability, after finishing the college
course, he would have entered the film business. As a matter of fact, the deceased and his brother-in-law had made an arrangement to take a
colour film. The Appellant''s case was also that the deceased was expected to have a predominantly happy life but for the untimely death brought
about by the accident and that having regard to the above circumstances the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- claimed by her is a reasonable compensation
for the death of her son. But the Tribunal has found that though Petitioner asserted that the deceased and her son-in-law had made arrangement to
take a colour film, she did not produce any evidence to prove such an arrangement. In her cross-examination, Petitioner has admitted that the
arrangement was only a casual discussion about taking a colour film. The deceased was a student aged 18 years and though the parents of the
deceased expected him to enter the film business, the deceased might have had his own plans. It is no doubt true, if the deceased had entered the
film business, he would have had the advantage of the wisdom and experience of his father in that field. But it is not possible to predict that the
deceased would have entered the film business and would have earned lakhs of rupees by utilising the wisdom and experience of his father. How
he would have turned out in his life later is at best a guess. It is true that there was a reasonable probability of his parents could have afforded him a
good education and also a good footing in a business.
It is well established that there can be no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of the human life and the measure of damage cannot be
arrived at by precise mathematical calculations but the amount recoverable depends on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. It is also
equally well established that in assessing damages, the court must exclude all considerations of matters which rest in speculation or fancy though
conjecture to some extent is inevitable. As a general rule parents are entitled to recover the present cash value of the prospective service of the
deceased minor child. In addition they may receive compensation for loss of pecuniary benefits reasonably to be expected after the child attains
majority. It is not necessary that the deceased should have been actually earning money or money''s worth or contributing to the support of the
claimant at or before the date of the death. But in order to succeed, the claimant must necessarily show that he has lost a reasonable probability of
pecuniary advantage. It is not possible to compute the compensation in this case taking note of the earnings of the father in his film business or on
the basis that the deceased would have started the same business and would have earned the same income as his father. It is not, therefore,
possible to hold that the deceased would have earned several lakhs of rupees through film business if he had been alive. As it is, there is no
evidence to show that the deceased had evinced an interest to start film business after he comes of age. In these circumstances, it would be highly
conjectural to proceed on the basis that the deceased, if he had been alive, would have started the film business and would have carried on the
same with as much success as his father did.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,000/- for pain and suffering as against the claim of Rs. 10,000/- made under that head and a sum of
Rs. 10,000/- for the loss of a predominantly happy life. Thus it awarded a total compensation of Rs 17,000/-. However, having regard to the fact
that the deceased was studying B.A. course in the college, there is every possibility of his taking up some employment or of his entering a business
after the completion of his course and so some amount has to be awarded towards the loss of pecuniary advantage as part of his earnings would
have gone to the benefit of the claimant. In all probability, even if he does not enter the film business as a film producer or distributor, he can, after
the completion of the course, straight-away take up employment under his father and would be in a position to earn an income for himself. Having
regard to the fact that the deceased would in all probability marry at the age of 25, the benefit of the earnings of the deceased would have gone to
the Appellant substantially only upto a period of 7 years, i.e. till the deceased would have married. Subsequent to the marriage, he will have a
family of his own to maintain and therefore, the benefit that will go to the mother out of his earnings would considerably be reduced. Taking all
these factors into consideration, we can award a further sum of Rs. 13,000/- under the head ''loss of dependency''. In this view, the appeal is
allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 17,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 30,000/-. The enhancement amount will bear
interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. There will be no order as to costs.