H.K. Kamalamma and Others vs K.T. Dharanendraiah and Others

A. Venkatarami Reddy, J.—The claimants in O.P. No. 12 of 1980 are the Appellants in this appeal. On 15.8.1979 in an accident that occurred due to collision of a motor cycle on which Sanna Rudranna was proceeding on the road running from Bellary to Bangalore and the lorry MYU 6025 which was proceeding in the opposite direction, Sanna Rudranna died. His legal representatives, the wife and three minor children, filed claim petition O.P. No. 12 of 1980 in the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur, claiming in all Rs. 1,54,000/ -. The Tribunal on issue Nos. 1 and 2 found that Sanna Rudranna died due to the rash driving by him of his motor cycle and the 2nd Respondent of the lorry MYU 6025 and their contribution is 50 per cent each. The Tribunal rejected the claim in respect of marriage expenses and loss of earning and awarded a sum of Rs. 8,150/ - consisting of Rs. 2,500/ - towards pain and suffering, Rs. 650/ - towards damage to the motor cycle and wrist-watch and Rs. 5,000/ - towards the loss of consortium.

It is contended in this appeal that the Tribunal erred (i) in holding that there is contributory negligence to an extent of 50 per cent on the part of Sanna Rudranna and (ii) that since there was no diminution of income the claimants are not entitled to any compensation under the head of ''loss of support''.

With regard to the first contention the learned Counsel relied upon the evidence of P Ws 1 and 3, who witnessed the accident. PW 1 stated in his evidence that at about 6 a.m. while he was proceeding on the road from his village Hirehal towards his land situated at a distance of about one mile and one or two furlongs from the village by the side of the road leading to Bangalore, the deceased overtook him on his motor cycle and after he covered a distance of 1/2 furlong a lorry came in the opposite direction, swerved to its right and dashed against the deceased and the motor cycle was thrown at a distance of 4 or 5 yards due to the impact and Sanna Rudranna fell in an unconscious state and subsequently died. PW 3, who was in his field, stated that Sanna Rudranna was hit by the lorry coming from the opposite direction. According to him, the deceased fell on the road margin and the lorry was coming with speed. The Tribunal held that it cannot be denied that P Ws 1 and 3 have lands nearby and their presence near-about the scene of occurrence cannot be ruled out. The names of P Ws 1 and 3 are noted in column 1(b) of the inquest report as witnesses. Since there is no indication in the inquest report that they have witnessed the occurrence, the Tribunal did not place reliance on their evidence. RW 1, the driver, stated that the motor-cyclist came in the opposite direction and turned to his right to go into the cart-track and hit the lorry and that he stopped the lorry by applying brakes within a distance of 10 feet after it hit the motor cycle and that he proceeded to Hirehal police station and gave a report. But in the inquest report Exh. A-6, it was stated that the dead body of Sanna Rudranna was found at a distance of 3 feet to the east of the road and at a distance of 30 feet from the turning to Famine road leading to Madanapalli. It was further stated in the inquest report that the lorry was found stationary at a distance of 188 feet to the north of the place where the dead body was found and that motor cycle tyre marks were found over a distance of 91 feet indicating that it was dragged by the lorry towards north after the impact. Thus the inquest report shows that the turn to the Famine road was 80 feet away from the place of the accident, that the lorry was stopped only at a distance of 188 feet to the north of the place and that the motor cycle was dragged to a distance of 91 feet. This clearly shows that the lorry after it hit the motor cycle went to a distance of nearly 188 feet and dragged the motor cycle to a distance of 91 feet indicating that the lorry was being driven with great speed. In the face of the inquest report, the evidence of RW 1 that the motor cycle took a turn to go into the cart-track and hit the lorry and that he stopped the lorry by applying brakes within a distance of 10 feet after it hit the motor cycle cannot be believed. There is no other evidence on behalf of the Respondent. The evidence of P Ws 1 and 3 that they were present at the scene of occurrence was not doubted by the Tribunal and it clearly shows that due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry Sanna Rudranna died. The lorry swerved to the right and hit the motor cycle. Since the inquest report shows that the Famine road is 80 feet away from the place of accident, it cannot be said that Sanna Rudranna took a right turn and therefore was hit by the lorry. Thus, there is no evidence to indicate that Sanna Rudranna was also negligent in driving the motor cycle and that he also contributed to the accident. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the finding of the Tribunal that Sanna Rudranna died due to rash driving by himself of his motor cycle. I find that the 2nd Respondent drove the lorry rashly and negligently and hit the motor cycle as a result of which Sanna Rudranna died.

With regard to the other question that since there is no diminution in the income from the lands and the business the claimants are not entitled to any compensation, it is contended by the learned Counsel that the reasoning of the Tribunal is incorrect. It was contended that Sanna Rudranna was supervising the agricultural operations and his contribution to the members of the family is by his supervision. The services of supervision and coordination of the labour have to be valued as his death resulted in the loss of those services to the members of the family. In Automobiles Transport (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Dewalal and Others, it was held:

The mere fact that the dependents have been admitted to the benefits of the family business will not go to show that the children and the widow and the parents have suffered no loss on account of the death of Dharamchand. We are also unable to say how the finding of the learned Tribunal can be disturbed in respect of the loss of supervising services which the agricultural land was going to suffer on account of the death of the deceased Dharamchand.

I agree with the abovesaid decision. In the instant case PW 4 is the brother of the deceased and PW 5 is the widow of the deceased. PW 4 stated that he and his brothers have partitioned their properties, that the deceased got his share of 15 acres of dry land and 12 acres of garden land, that the deceased was personally cultivating his lands and the lands of his brothers, that he was having exclusively for himself and is running cloth shop and a flour mill at Hirehal, that he was a partner in M/s. H.K. Santhappa and Co. and M/s. H.K. Ranganath and Co. at Bellary and that he was getting an annual income of Rs. 50,000/ - from his lands. He further stated that one Latchappa was engaged as clerk to look after the cultivation of his lands. PW 5 also stated that her husband was supervising the cultivation of the lands. To the similar effect is the evidence of PW 3. Thus it is evident that Sanna Rudranna was supervising the cultivation of the lands, that he had exclusive cloth shop and that he was also a partner in M/s. H.K. Santhappa and Co. at Bellary. The Tribunal also held that it has no hesitation in holding that Latchappa has been engaged to look after the lands of the deceased and his brothers. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence and the conclusions of the Tribunal it can be seen that the deceased Sanna Rudranna was contributing his services to the family by way of supervising the cultivation of the lands. In these days an agricultural labourer is paid atleast Rs. 10/ - per day. Atleast that amount of Rs. 10/ - per day should be taken towards the supervisory charges and for coordination of the agricultural operations. Calculating at that rate, the value of his supervisory services will come to Rs. 3,600/ - per year. Assuming that the deceased should have spent half the amount on himself and contributed half to his family, the contribution of the deceased will come to Rs. 1,800/ -. The Tribunal found that the deceased was 28 years old at the time of his death. Taking the life expectancy as 60 years the deceased would have supported his family for another 32 years. Thus, the total amount of contribution will come to Rs. 57,600/ -. If l/5th from the aforesaid amount of Rs. 57,600/ - is deducted towards the lump sum, imponderables and accelerated payment, the amount of loss of dependency to the members of the family would come to Rs. 46,000/ - approximately. In arriving at the above sum, I have also taken into consideration the fact that the deceased was earning about forty to fifty thousand rupees from agriculture and from his cloth business and also being a partner in a business firm. No doubt, the wife was made a partner of that business. But that does not mean no loss was suffered by the family on account of his death. Taking all the above circumstances into consideration, the loss of dependency approximately can be estimated to be Rs. 46,000/ -.

In addition to the aforesaid sum, the 1st Petitioner will be entitled to Rs. 10,000/ - towards loss of consortium and all the claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - towards pain and suffering, and Rs. 1,300/ - towards the damage of motor cycle and wrist-watch. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the payment of Rs. 62,300/ -. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per year from the date of claim on the amount awarded by Tribunal and at 12 per cent on the enhanced amount from the date of claim.

After deducting a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - from out of the total amount of compensation of Rs. 62,300/ -, the claimants are entitled to l/4th share each out of the balance amount of Rs. 52,300/ -, i.e., Rs. 13,075/ -. The 1st claimant would be entitled to Rs. 13,075/ - plus Rs. 10,000/ - = Rs. 23,075/ -. The share of the minor claimants is directed to be put in a fixed deposit till they attain majority, and on their attaining majority the amount shall be paid to them. It is, however, made clear that the interest on the fixed deposits may be paid to the first claimant once in three months.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed as indicated above. No costs.