Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Hemabhai Daya Harijan and Others

S.K. Keshote, J.—Both these appeals have arisen from common judgment in M.A.C. Petition No. 63 of 1990 and M.A.C. Petition No. 64 of 1990 decided on 13.10.1997 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Kachchh at Bhuj, and as such these appeals are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

One important fact to be noticed is that these appeals have arisen from one and the same motor vehicle accident. M.A.C. Petition No. 63 of 1990 has been filed by the parents of the deceased child aged 10 months for compensation. Claim Petition No. 64 of 1990 has been filed by the mother of the child, who sustained injuries in the same accident. The facts of the case in brief are that on 13.10.1989 deceased child and his mother were waiting for S.T. bus near Lodrani S.T. Bus Stop. At about 1.00 o''clock, S.T. bus plying from Dholavira to Bhuj had reached Lodrani Bus Stop. Respondent No. 3 herein was driving the bus. He stopped the bus and then the lady along with her child entered the bus. At that time, the conductor of the said bus suddenly gave signal without closing the door of S.T. bus and the bus driver abruptly started the bus with full speed and in negligent manner, and as a result thereof, the mother carrying the child lost balance and fell down from the bus. Mother and child sustained injuries. Both were taken to the Government Hospital, Rapar. The child was declared dead and the mother was treated as indoor patient there.

In Claim Petition No. 63 of 1990, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 was claimed on account of death of the child; and in Claim Petition No. 64 of 1990 Rs. 50,000 were claimed as compensation for the injuries sustained by the lady. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 75,000 as compensation for the death of the child together with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of claim application till realisation. In the injuries case, the claimant lady has been awarded Rs. 50,000 as compensation with interest. Hence these appeals before this court.

Learned counsel for the appellant made two-fold contentions, that for the death of the child of 10 months, award of Rs. 75,000 as compensation is towards the higher side. It is contended that the award of Rs. 50,000 to the mother of the child as compensation for the injury sustained by her, in the instant case, is also on the higher side. I do not find any substance in any of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant.

The Tribunal, after considering all the aspects of the matter has awarded Rs. 75,000 as compensation to the parents for loss of their child. The Tribunal rightly observed that because of the loss of the child, the parents would remain in trauma throughout their life and they cannot be compensated in any manner for this loss, saving the monetary compensation awarded for this tragedy as a result of rash and negligent driving of the S.T. bus, and it is the only solace in reparation. This boy of ten months is a toy for his parents and the loss of this toy to the parents is difficult to be compensated by awarding compensation in monetary terms. The loss suffered by the parents due to sudden demise of their ten months old child cannot be calculated in terms of money. Taking into consideration all relevant factors to be kept in mind while considering the case for awarding compensation for the loss of the child to the parents, the Tribunal has reached just and reasonable figure in which normally, this court should not interfere. The approach made by the Tribunal in this matter cannot be said to be perverse. Hence First Appeal No. 5321 of 1997 is dismissed in limine.

In M.A.C.P. No. 64 of 1990, the award of Rs. 50,000 to the claimant lady also cannot be said to be towards higher side. I find from the award that the lady has taken treatment for injury sustained by her in the Rapar Government Hospital and in G.K. General Hospital, Bhuj as indoor patient. She remained in G.K. General Hospital, Bhuj as an indoor patient from 15.10.1989 to 29.10.1989. She sustained fracture on left condyle bone. She also sustained injuries over left hand, chest and other parts of the body. Certificate of Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr. Suresh A. Doshi shows that she has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 22 per cent. Taking into consideration the pain, shock and suffering, which this lady has undergone because of the injuries suffered by her in the accident, the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding Rs. 15,000 under this head. Under the head of medical expenses, looking to the nature of the injury sustained and the period through which she remained as indoor patient, the award seems to be on lower side. Rs. 1,000 which has been awarded under the head of nursing and care which would have been necessary for the period she stayed at the hospital is not seriously contested by the learned counsel for the appellant also. He has also not seriously contested the award of Rs. 1,000 under the head ''conveyance charges''. Award of Rs. 1,000 for rich diet is also not contested. The amount of loss of income of Rs. 3,000 is also not towards the higher side. The main thrust of the argument remains on the compensation awarded under the head ''loss of future income''. The Tribunal has taken the disability of the lady to 22 per cent. Orthopaedic Surgeon has certified that the lady has permanent disability of 22 per cent, but the Tribunal has taken permanent disability of the body as a whole at 10 per cent. That also seems to be correct approach, to which no exception can be taken. The learned counsel for the appellant is unable to satisfy this court how in a case where total permanent disability was taken to be 22 per cent, 10 per cent disability of the body as a whole could not be taken on the basis of which calculation has been made and the Tribunal has taken average income of the claimant to be Rs. 1,500, which also does not seem to be towards the higher side looking to the increase in minimum wages or labour charges. The lady was only 26 years old and the multiplier of 15 taken is also proper figure. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts of this case, the award of Rs. 50,000 to the lady for the injuries sustained by her in the accident is reasonable to which no interference of this court is called for.

The First Appeal No. 5322 of 1997 also deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.