Kaushalaya Devi and Another vs Darshan Singh and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This appeal filed on behalf of the claimants is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, dated 13-5-1983, whereby the claim petition was dismissed.

The claim petition has arisen out of an accident which took place on 20-1-1981 at 12.00 p.m. and resulted in the death of Miss Madhu Bala Mittal, aged 16 years, a student of Prep-Medical. Her parents filed the present claim petition, alleging that on 26-1-1981, Miss Madhu Bala was coming from the side of women college to her house on a bicycle, Miss Vijay Kumari was also coming on her cycle along with Miss Madhu Bala. When she and Vijay Kumari reached near the statue of Sewa Singh Thikriwala on the Mall Road, Patiala, Darshan Singh, respondent No. 1 who was driving truck No. PBN 6123 rashly and negligently came there and struck against the bicycles of Madhu Bala and Vijay Kumari. Madhu Bala sustained injuries in the said accident. She was removed to the hospital where she died after four days. It was further stated that they have suffered loss due to the death of Miss Madhu Bala. They also spent a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on her treatment. Thus, they have claimed a sum of Rs. one lac by way of compensation. The petition was contested by the owner of the truck and the Insurance Company. According to them, truck No. PBN-6123 was not involved in the accident and Miss Madhu Bala deceased died because of her own negligence. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether Miss Madhu Bala Mittal died in rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle by Darshan Singh respondent ? OPP.

(2) To what amount of compensation, if any, are the applicants entitled and against whom ? OPP.

(3) Relief.

Under issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal observed that "Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the evidence produced by. the applicants although proved that the accident in which Madhu Bala died was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. PBN 6123, but this evidence fails to prove that the truck at the time of accident was being driven by Darshan Singh respondent". Under issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal took the view that the claimants have failed to prove that they have suffered any pecuniary loss due to the death of their daughter Miss Madhu Bala. Not only that, the learned Tribunal further observed that "rather it has come in evidence that Miss Madhu Bala was a young girl and was a student of Prep-Medical. She was not earning anything. She must rather be a liability for the applicants. So, because of her death the applicants cannot be said to have suffered any pecuniary loss and, as such, no general damages can, in my opinion, be allowed to the applicants due to the death of their daughter Miss Madhu Bala". As regards the amount of Rs. 5,000/- which according to the claimants were spent on her treatment, the learned Tribunal held that the evidence was insufficient to prove that any amount she incurred by the applicants on the treatment of their daughter Miss Madhu Bala. In view of these findings, the claim petition was dismissed.

The learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that Madhu Bala was the only daughter of her parents. She was a bright student of Prep-Medical class. She was to adopt the career of a doctor and was thus great help to the family. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the approach of the learned Tribunal in this behalf was wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. He cited Rupinder Singh Vs. Jaswant Singh and Others, and Balwant Singh and Anr. v. Jyoti Prasad and Anr. 1986 (1) PLR 546 to contend that when a minor child of six years of age died in an accident, compensation was allowed, though no pecuniary loss as such could be proved on account of the death of the minor. The learned Counsel also contended that the claimants were also entitled to the expenses incurred on the treatment of their deceased. Cross-objections have been filed on behalf of the owner of the truck in which, it has been stated that it has been wrongly held that the accident took place with truck No. PBN-6123.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on record.

As regards the negligence of the truck driver no meaningful argument could be raised to challenge the finding of the Tribunal. After discussing the entire evidence, it has been rightly observed by the Tribunal that "in view of these proved facts it can safely be concluded that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and thereby the accident was caused". As regards the amount of compensation, the approach of the learned Tribunal is wholly misconceived. Sat Pal Mittal, father of the deceased has appeared as PW 5 and has stated that Madhu Bala was their only daughter. She was a student of Prep-Medical in Modi College Patiala. She used to cook the meals for the house. She also used to help him in maintaining the accounts. After her death, he had to engage a servant for the household work and for looking after his wife. He had also employed an Accountant at his shop after the death of his daughter to help him in maintaining the accounts. He has also stated that the deceased remained admitted in the hospital for five days and thereafter the expired and he spent a sum of Rs. 5000/- or Rs. 4000/- on her treatment. Moreover, the father of the deceased is running a Chemist shop and that being so, he was keen to see that his daughter Madhu Bala adopts the career of a doctor and that is why she was admitted in the Prep-Medical class in the college. In Rupinder Singh''s case (supra) on the death of two minor girls aged 8 and 4 years respectively, the parents were awarded Rs. 35,000/- as compensation. It was held that the parents cannot be denied compensation merely on the ground that the deceased were their daughters and not the sons. Of course, it was further observed therein that the compensation payable to the parents would, of course, depend upon various factors like age and health of the minor child as also that of her parents, their position and status in life, both in the context of their expectations from their child as also what they would have provided at the child in her upbringing and education and what consequently the child could be expected to make of herself in life and what the cost thereof would have been to her parents. Similarly, in Balwant Singh''s case (supra), on the death of a minor girl aged six years, a sum of Rs. 30,000/-was awarded as compensation to the parents.

As regards the facts of the present case, as stated by the father himself, deceased Madhu Bala was the only daughter, having three brothers. She was a bright student and got 1st class in her matriculation, as is evident from the matriculation certificate produced on record. The father being a Chemist was naturally anxious to see that the daughter adopts the career of a doctor. Thus keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 36,000/- as compensation on this count. Apart from that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,000/- which were spent on her treatment. The approach of the learned Tribunal in this behalf also was wholly misconceived. The mere fact that the bills/vouchers were not produced could not be a ground to disallow the expenses incurred. Since the deceased''s father was himself a Chemist, the necessity of keeping the bills/vouchers etc. did not arise. Dr. Gurdip Singh, who appeared as P W 2 has stated that 30 bottles of glucose were administered to the patient. Blood transfusion was also done and 16 bottles of blood were transfused. The girl died in the hospital after four days. Thus, from this medical evidence, it could be safely concluded that the parents must have spent a sum of Rs. 4000/- on her treatment, as stated by her father Sat Pal Mittal as PW 5. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 40,000/- with 12 per cent per annum interest from the date of the application. All the respondents will be jointly and severally liable for payment of the said amount. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the cross-objections filed by the respondents are dismissed. The appellants shall also be entitled to the costs of this appeal.