AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the Award and Decree dated
28.2.2007 made in O.P. No. 2065 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
On 12.10.2003 at about 11.00 hours, the deceased Priyadarseni was taking water behind the Water Tanker Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-
59-B-9064 at No. 864, N.V.N. Nagar, 8th Street, Thirumangalam. At that time, the driver of the Water Tanker Lorry, without taking due care,
reversed the lorry in a very rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained severe head
injury. She was taken to the hospital and she died in the hospital. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. The claimants claimed a
compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-, but restricted to Rs.5,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The Insurance Claim resisted the claim. On pleading, the
Tribunal framed the following issues:
a) Whether the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-59-B-9064 acted in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident?
b) Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation from the Insurance Company? If so, what is the reasonable amount that can be
awarded as compensation?
On the side of the claimants, witness P.W.1 was examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company,
no witnesses were examined and only one document was marked as Ex.R1. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal
was of the view that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Water Tanker Lorry and awarded a compensation of
Rs.2,75,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident had occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the Water Tanker Lorry. It is also further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excessive and exorbitant
compensation without basis and justification and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law.
Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and came to the right
conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law.
Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, one Sivaraj who is the father of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.1 and documents
Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, no witnesses were examined and only one document was marked as
Ex.R1. Ex.P1 is the copy of F.I.R. Ex.P2 is the copy of sketch. Ex.P3 is the copy of Post Mortem Certificate. Ex.P4 is the Legal Heirship
Certificate. Ex.P5 is the Bonafide Certificate issued by Joshua Matric Higher Secondary School, Chennai. Ex.P6 is the Merit Certificate. Ex.P7 is
the series of medical bills. Ex.R1 is the Investigation Report. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a
compensation of Rs. 2,75,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss of income 2,25,000/-
Loss of love and affection 20,000/-
Loss of estate 20,000/-
Funeral expenses 5,000/-
Medical expenses 3,500/-
Pain and suffering 1,500/-
-----------
Total... 2,75,000/-
===========
The Tribunal had given a finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Water Tanker Lorry. The
father of the deceased examined himself as P.W.1. He has given oral evidence that when his daughter was getting water from the tap of the lorry,
the driver of the lorry took the lorry in the reverse direction without giving any signal, due to which the deceased dashed against the rear side of the
lorry and sustained severe head injuries and died later. This evidence is also corroborated by Ex.P1-First Information Report lodged by one of the
resident, who also sustained simple injuries. In the First Information Report it is specifically averred that unexpectedly the lorry driver took the
vehicle in reverse, thereby hitting against the persons who were standing at the rear side of the lorry and also causing grievous injuries to the
deceased, who was taking water from the tap. Ex.P2 is the sketch, which clearly reveals that it is the lorry driver who had suddenly taken the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. After considering these evidence, the Tribunal had given a finding that the accident had occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver belonging to the Water Tanker Lorry. The deceased was 13 years old at the time of accident. She was a
student studying in Joshua Matric Higher Secondary School at Tiruvalleeswarar Nagar and the course certificate issued by the said school is
marked as Ex.P5. Ex.P6 is the merit certificate which shows that the deceased girl participated in the Inter School Competition. Hence it is evident
that she was a bright student and also she had a bright future. After taking into consideration of the relevant factor, the Tribunal had taken
Rs.15,000/- p.a. as notional income and applied the multiplier of 15 for the purpose of arriving the compensation and awarded a sum of
Rs.2,25,000/- towards loss of income (Rs.15,000/- x 15). It is stated by the counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that 15 multiplier
adopted by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the correct multiplier that should be adopted is 10. The counsel also relied on various
judgments to support his contention. After hearing the arguments, I feel that it would be appropriate to adopt the multiplier of 10 and accordingly,
the compensation towards loss of income works out to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 10). Hence the loss of income is modified to Rs.1,50,000/-
as against the compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and
affection. The deceased was the only daughter and hence the Tribunal is correct in awarding a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and
affection. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,500/- towards medical expenses. It is stated by the counsel that the deceased was admitted in the hospital
and document Ex.P7 has been marked, which is the series of medical bills. Taking into consideration of the same, it would be appropriate and
reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate. As
already Rs.1,50,000/- has been awarded towards loss of income, it is not necessary to award any amount towards loss of estate and hence the
amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded towards loss of estate is set aside. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards pain and
suffering. The amount awarded towards pain and suffering is very meagre. It would be appropriate and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-
under this head. The details of the modified compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss of income 1,50,000/-
Loss of love and affection 20,000/-
Funeral expenses 5,000/-
Medical expenses 5,000/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
----------
Total... 1,85,000/-
==========
In the case of Kaushlya Devi v. Shri Karan Arora and Ors. (2007) 5 MLJ 1269 (SC), the Apex Court considered the scope of awarding
compensation in respect of children falling within the age group of 10 to 15, and held as follows:
There are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totality of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or
the splendor of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape-measure. The determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult
task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non-earning person. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the
deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer.
The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, the relevant factor would be
age of parents.
In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child''s life-time. But this will
not necessarily bar the parent''s claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they had a reasonable
expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. This principle was laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. v.
Jenkins (1913) AC 1, and LORD ATKINSON said thus:
...all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the
existence of this expectation is an inference of fact - there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to
express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first
that the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant
pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can I think, be drawn from circumstances other than and
different from them.
(See Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, )
This Court in Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) while computing compensation made distinction between deceased
children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years.
In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the
future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is
that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so
many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on
estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation.
These aspects were highlighted in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satender and Others, .
Following the principles enunciated in the judgment of the Apex Court cited supra, in the present case, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,85,000/-
as compensation instead of Rs.2,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is
reasonable and hence the same is confirmed.
The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.1,85,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the
amount if any, paid already, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On making such deposit, the claimants
are permitted to withdraw the entire amount from the deposit.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modification. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2007 is closed. No costs.