AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.L. Oza, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore directing the Appellant to pay Rs. 12,000/- as compensation to the Respondents 1 and 2 who are the Applicants, for the death of their son Ramratan alleged to be of 13 years of age who was knocked down by the passenger bus of the Appellant on account of rash and negligent act on the part of the driver.
According to the Respondent their son Ramratan aged 13 years was walking on the pavement of the road at the time of the accident when Respondent No. 3, the driver who was driving the bus, drove it negligently and dashed against the boy on the right side of the road resulting in severe injuries and ultimately death of the boy. The two Respondents claimed Rs. 30,000/- as compensation. According to the Appellant and Respondent No. 3 the bus was being driven at a slow speed. At that time at the place of the accident 3 or 4 boys started crossing the road from left to the right as there was a school there and in order to avoid the accident the bus was taken towards the right side of the road; but still, unfortunately, the boy got under the hind wheels of the vehicle. The learned member of the Claims Tribunal after recording evidence found that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. It was also found that there was no fault of the boy. The learned Member therefore awarded an amount of Rs. 12,000/- as compensation.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the evidence of the driver indicates that the brakes were not working properly and when he attempted to use the brake the vehicle was being driven towards the right, but according to learned Counsel there was no negligence on the part of the driver which could be said to be the cause of the accident. Learned Counsel contesting Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the other hand contended that the driver in his cross examination had to admit that the washer of the brake of one wheel was torn and it was because of this that when the driver used the brake the vehicle did not stop and on the contrary it went towards the right side and knocked down the boy on the extreme right side of the road. This according to learned Counsel was sufficient and on the basis of this evidence the learned Member of the Tribunal was right in holding that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver.
Apart from the other evidence the evidence of the driver itself goes to show that inspite of the fact that the driver wanted to stop the vehicle by applying the brakes the vehicle did not stop but on the contrary ran towards the extreme right. Although according to the driver he was driving the vehicle at a slow speed, but admittedly he was passing the village where there was a school on one side and therefore he was expected to drive in such a manner as would not render it impossible for him to control the vehicle. The circumstances therefore appearing in the evidence clearly go to show that the accident occurred on account of the negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver and this conclusion arrived at by the learned Member of the Tribunal therefore is justified.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that Rs. 12,000/- awarded by the Member of the Tribunal is excessive. He referred to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported in C.K. Subramania Iyer and Others Vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and Others, where their Lordships maintained compensation of Rs. 6,000/-awarded in the case of death of a child of about 8 years when the evidence in that case indicated that the parents of the child were well to do and the child was doing well in his studies in the school. It was contended by learned Counsel that in the present case the father of the child himself had stated that he is earning about Rs. 100/- per month by doing manual labour and there is nothing to indicate that the child was doing well in his studies although it is in evidence that he was going to school and studying in class III. Learned Counsel also contended that the finding about the age of the boy being 13 is not proper as according to learned Counsel the father of the boy in his statement admitted that he was admitted in class I when he was of about 6 or 7 years and at the time of the accident the boy was studying in class III.
According to the evidence of Kanhaiyalal (P.W. 4) father of the deceased this boy was admitted in school three years before and at that time his age was about 6 or 7 years. Apparently from his evidence it appears that the age of the boy would be about 10 or 11 years. The learned Member of the Claims Tribunal, it appears, had accepted the age given by the doctor which is approximately 11 years and in view of the evidence of Kanhaiyalal as discussed above the conclusion could not be said to be erroneous. The learned Member of the Tribunal taking all circumstances into consideration awarded Rs. 12,000/- and learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that it was excessive. Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents on the other hand placed reliance on a decision reported in Kasturilal Gopaldas and Another Vs. Prabhakar Martand Patki and Another, where, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of the death of a boy aged 13 years had maintained the award of Rs. 19,500/-. He also placed a reliance on a decision reported in Mrs. Hira Devi Vs. Smt. Bhaba Kanti Das and Others etc. etc., where for the death of child aged about 12 years Rs. 12,000/- were awarded.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant on the basis of the decision reported in C.K. Subramania Iyer and Others Vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and Others, wanted to contend that when their Lordships of the Supreme Court maintained an award of Rs. 6,000/- for the death of a boy of 8 years in the case of the boy coming from well, to-do parents and doing well in education, the award of Rs. 12,000/- in the present case in the case of death of a boy coming from the family of a poor labourer could not be justified. This argument of learned Counsel apparently could not be accepted. In the case reported in C.K. Subramania Iyer and Others Vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and Others, ) even the circumstance that the family of the deceased was so well to do that his earnings and support to the family was not needed immediately was considered and from the fact that the award of Rs. 6,000/- was not thought to be unduly low their Lordships did not interfere with the decision of the High Court. It could not be disputed that the earnings and support of a son in the family of a poor labourer is immediately needed and that support is more valuable than in the case of a well-to-do family. Apart from it, it could not be disputed that the age of the boy in that case was 8 years at the time of his death whereas the age of the boy in the present case was about 11 years at the time of his death and looking to the family from which this boy came it could not be doubted that a few years after he would have started earning and supporting the family as it needed his support very much. Apart from it, in the award of compensation in such cases it is always a matter of speculation and approximation.
It is clear that the boy had attained an age where uncertainties of childhood were not in existence. He had attained an age where he had come out of those uncertainties and was expected to support the family after a few years. In the two other cases relied upon by learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 amounts of Rs. 19,500/-and Rs. 12,000/- had been awarded in cases of boys of 13 and 12 respectively. In this view of the matter, therefore it could not be said that the amount awarded by the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal is excessive which calls for interference by this Court.
Consequently we see no reason to interfere with the award passed by the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Respondent No. 1 and 2 shall be entitled to costs of this appeal. Counsel fee Rs. 200/-(two hundred) if certified.