AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.—The Claimants, husband and three minor children of the deceased by name Smt. Jakkammpudi Kanakadurga, filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for short, ''Tribunal'') in M.V.O.P. No. 748 of 2002 dated 22.11.2004, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) as against the claim of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakh fifty thousand only), against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 viz., the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle (Lorry) for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ''the Act''). Heard Sri K. Venkata Rao, the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad, the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent-Rayal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-owner of the crime vehicle. The appeal against the 1st respondent-driver of the crime vehicle is dismissed for default and he is no way a necessary party to decide the lis. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.
The contentions in the grounds of appeal in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal erred in arriving a wrong conclusion on the quantum of compensation and awarded a very meager amount instead of awarding as claimed and prayed for from nature of avocation of the deceased and earnings there from and from the age and multiplier that is applicable and also for the loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love, affection, care and protection etc., and hence to allow the appeal by enhancing and awarding full compensation as prayed for.
Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and requires interference by this Court white sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest?
To what result?
POINT-1:
The facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 05.04.2002 due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the crime vehicle (lorry bearing No. AP 5V 12) i.e. the 1st respondent that belongs to the 2nd respondent insured with the 3rd respondent covered by Ex.B.1 cover note of insurance, came in opposite direction and dashed against the auto bearing No. 4812 due to which the deceased J. Janakadurga travelling in the said auto sustained severe injuries in the occurrence was succumbed there from while undergoing treatment in Government hospital, Kothapet. It is also not in dispute that the deceased-J. Kanakadurga, was aged about 30 years-(as per Ex.A.3 Postmortem report) which occurrence is covered by Ex.A.1 First Information Report in Cr. No. 30 of 2002 under Sections 337 and 338 IPC, and also proved from Ex.A.2 M.V. report and evidence of P.W.1 with reference to it and of the eye witness P.W.2. The Tribunal from said evidence on record come to the conclusion of there is insurance coverage under Ex.B.1 cover note of insurance and the 3rd respondent-insurance company is liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent-owner of the vehicle to compensate the claimants and there from taken the earnings of deceased at Rs. 2,000/- p.m. basing on the value of domestic services of the deceased as domestic housewife since no proof for her avocation as a tailor and applied the multiplier 17 and also awarded Rs. 1,30,000/- i.e., towards loss of support, earnings, estate and expectance of Rs. 1,13,333/-; loss of love and affection of Rs. 6,667/-; loss of consortium in favour of the 1st petitioner of Rs. 5000/- and for pain sufferance and mental agony of Rs. 5000/- against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly, to be entitled by petitioner Nos. 1 to 4.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants in support of the grounds of the appeal that the Tribunal has taken a very low amount of earnings of deceased even more than that for a domestic housewife can be taken or an agricultural cooli can get to consider as the minimum earning capacity of every major human being, though the multiplier adopted of 17 is not in dispute and hence to award just compensation by taking consideration of the earnings at a minimum of Rs. 5,000/- per month with 50% increase there from of future earnings.
Before coming to decide, what is just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, It is apt to state that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or frame that has been battered and shattered, nor relieve from a pain suffered as stated by Lord Morris. In Ward v. James 1965 (1) All. E.R-563, it was observed by Lord Denning that award of damages in personal injury cases is basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in comparable cases. Thus, in a case involving loss of limb or its permanent inability or impairment, it is difficult to say with precise certainty as to what composition would be adequate to sufferer. The reason is that the loss of a human limb or its permanent impairment cannot be measured or converted in terms of money. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal representatives due to sudden demise. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule in measuring the value of human life or limb or sufferance and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at, by precise mathematical calculation, but amount recoverable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Upjohn LJ in Charle red House Credit v. Tolly 1963 (2) All. E.R. 432 remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in LORD v. in 555 All.E.R (1) 1969 Cleaver, Parry Morris>observed that to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult without some guess work but no other process can be devised than that of making a monitory assessment though it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. The Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, -CA Nos. 1799 and 800 of 1989 with SLP (Civil) 4586 of 1989 at paragraph No. 12 held that in its very nature whatever a Tribunal or a Court is to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standard. Thus, in most of the cases involving Motor Accidents, by looking at the totality of the circumstances, an inference may have to be drawn and a guess work has to be made even regarding compensation in case of death, for loss of dependent and estate to all claimants; care, guidance, love and affection especially of the minor children, consortium to the spouse, expenditure incurred in transport and funerals etc., and in case of injured from the nature of injuries, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings particularly for any disability and also probable expenditure that has to be incurred from nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment required. The appeal claim herein is thus confined to the quantum from the contention of not correctly taken the multiplicand and multiplier with future prospects in earnings and on the quantum of consortium and funeral expenses etc., in arriving a sum for awarding just compensation.
In this regard, it is well laid down by the Apex Court (Three Judges Bench) in the latest expression in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, referring to the earlier expressions in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, that compensation which appears to it to be just, has to be assessed and awarded by the Tribunal set up u/s 166 of the Act. The expression ''just compensation'' has been explained in Sarla Verma''s case (4th cited supra) holding that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not become just compensation merely because the Tribunal considered it to be just. ''Just compensation'' is an adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation.
From the above legal principles, coming to the factual matrix of case, As per the Ex.A.3 postmortem certificate, the deceased J. Kanakadurga, was aged about 30 years, working as a tailor and for no proof of her earnings, the income of the deceased was taken Rs. 10,000/- per annum nationally by the Tribunal. In fact as per the settled expression reported in Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , the notional income even for a domestic housewife as contribution can be taken at Rs. 3000/- per month and on deducting 1/3rd out of it for personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs. 2000/- p.m. and with 25% increase thereon of future prospects it comes to Rs. 2500/- p.m. x 12 = Rs. 30,000/- x by adopting multiplier 17 as laid down by the Apex Court in Rajesh''s case (cited supra) at paragraph No. 11 referring to the earlier expression in Sarla Verma''s case (cited supra) 17= Rs. 5,10,000/, loss of consortium entitled by the 1st claimant of Rs. 1,00,000/-, funeral expenses minimum of Rs. 25,000/-, love and affection, care and guidance-particularly to the claimant Nos. 2 to 4 minors, as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Rajesh''s case (cited supra), and loss of estate of Rs. 25,000/- = Rs. 6,60,000/- total compensation in all but confined to the appeal claim of Rs. 2,50,000/- as prayed for.
Having regard to the above, the compensation which the claimants are entitled comes to Rs. 2,50,000/- so award. The interest at 6% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is even not as per bank lending rate; thus from the settled proposition of law including from Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and Others, , Sarla Verma''s case (cited supra) and the latest expression in Rajesh''s case (cited supra), interest is awarded at 71/2% per annum by modifying and increasing the rate of interest from 6% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered.
POINT -2:
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the Award of the Tribunal on quantum of compensation by enhancing the same from Rs. 1,30,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakh fifty thousand only) with interest at 7 1/2% per annum from date of the claim petition till realization/deposit with notice. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, are directed to deposit within one month said amount with interest from the date of petition (after deduction of any amount paid so far pursuant to the award of the Tribunal), failing which the claimants can execute and recover. On such deposit or execution and recovery, claimant Nos. 1 to 4, who are entitled equally are permitted to withdraw since majors, subjects to major declaration if any, Rs. 50,000/- each, rest of the amounts of the claimants be invested respectively in separate Fixed Deposits in a nationalized bank. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.