AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short, ''the Act of 1988'') has been preferred against the
award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(First), Jodhpur (for short, ''learned Tribunal'') on 13.12.2000.
Learned Tribunal has quantified the award at Rs.2,20,000/- in
favour of the claimants/appellants while allowing interest @ 12%
per annum and excluding the interest amount for the period from
17.06.1996 to 08.09.1999.
Feeling aggrieved by the award aforesaid, this appeal has
been preferred by the claimants/appellants. It has been stated in
para 2 of the memo of appeal that disallowing the interest for the
period from 17.06.1996 to 08.09.1999 is erroneous and without
any just reason. Learned Tribunal itself has stated in para 24 of
the award that because the claimants have caused delay from
17.09.1996 to 08.09.1996; hence, interest could have not been
disallowed from an earlier date, i.e., 17.06.1996. Further,
adjournments were not sought during this period by the
claimants/appellants but there were other reasons also, e.g., the
Presiding Officer remained on leave, work abstention by members
of bar and both the parties getting the matter adjourned for
compromise. When the learned Tribunal has adjourned the matter
considering the reasons assigned to be sufficient and reasonable,
interest for the above said period should not have been
disallowed.
Other ground of the challenge is that one-third income has
been deducted for the personal living expenses of deceased
Shankar Lal while presuming his monthly income to be Rs.2400/-.
But looking to the four dependents namely, the wife and three
children, only one-fifth of the income should have been deducted
for the personal expenses of deceased. It has further been
averred that there is a calculation mistake committed by the
learned Tribunal and only Rs.2,00,000/- have been quantified in
place of Rs.2,11,200/-.
Third ground of challenge is that the learned Tribunal has
awarded a very meagre sum of Rs.5000/- for the loss of
consortium and Rs.2500/- each for the loss of love, care and
affection towards the other dependant family members of the
deceased. Taking the condition of the bereaved family members
into consideration that they have lost the only bread-winner for
the family and have been deprived of the help, company,
guidance, care and love and affection, at least a sum of
Rs.45,000/- should have been awarded by the learned Tribunal on
this head. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants
further stated that in the above circumstances, the award should
have been enhanced, while allowing the appeal.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.3 Insurance Company has argued that the learned Tribunal has
awarded just and reasonable compensation in the facts and
circumstances of the matter and the conditions prevalent at the
time of accident in view of the relevant and prevalent legal
provisions. He has further fairly conceded that the arithmetical
mistake in quantifying the award can be corrected. He has also
stated that disallowance of interest amount is justified as the
claimants/appellants themselves pursued their claim with
negligence and slackness. He has thus prayed that the award may
be upheld while disallowing the appeal.
In view of the rival contentions raised by both the sides, I
have given thoughtful consideration to the material available on
record.
Succinctly stated the facts giving rise to the claim and
present appeal are that on 23.02.1996 when deceased Shankar
Lal and some other persons were travelling in tempo bearing
registration No. R.S.Q.-3559 from Jodhpur to Banar, a bus bearing
registration No. R.J.19-0091 coming from the opposite side
collided head on from the wrong side causing injuries to the
passengers of the tempo. Injured Shankar Lal was taken to the
Mahatma Gandhi Hospital for treatment and on 28.02.1994, he
succumbed to the injuries. His legal representatives preferred this
claim petition. Learned Tribunal quantified a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-
as award against all the respondents jointly and severally along
with interest @ 12% per annum thereon. Claimants assailed the
same by way of this appeal.
Insofar as, the question of disallowing the interest for the
period from 17.06.1996 to 08.09.1999 is concerned, it is
apparently clear on perusal of para 24 of the award passed by the
learned Tribunal as also the record received therefrom that the
issues were framed on 17.09.1996, thus disallowing the interest
prior thereto i.e., w.e.f. 17.06.1996 was not at all warranted.
There appears a typing mistake in the operative portion of the
award in this regard. Further, on perusal of the order sheets
contained in the record received from the Tribunal from dated
17.09.1996 to 08.09.1999, it is apparently clear that on
07.08.1997, 18.11.1997, 30.03.1998 and 15.09.1998, the
concerned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was on leave. On
20.11.1997, adjournment was granted on account of the reference
held for sad demise of one of the Hon''ble Judges of Rajasthan
High Court. On 17.07.1999 and 28.07.1999, the matter was
adjourned on the request of both sides for getting it compromised
through Lok Adalat. It is thus apparent that it was not the
slackness or negligence on the part of the appellants/claimants for
which alone, the claim was dragged on unnecessarily for the
period from 17.09.1996 to 08.09.1999, but there were other
reasons also for which, the claimants cannot be held liable and
penalized.
In view of above, the amount of interest @ 12% per annum
for the period from 17.06.1996 to 08.09.1999 is required to be
awarded in favour of the claimants/appellants and is accordingly
allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellants has claimed that the
interest amount for the aforesaid period comes to be Rs.66,300/-,
which needs to be ascertained and whatever amount of interest @
12% per annum for the period from 17.06.1996 to 08.09.1999 is
calculated, the claimants/appellants will be entitled to receive the
same.
So far as, the challenge on the ground that the personal
living expenses for deceased should have been awarded at the
rate of one-fifth in place of one-third is concerned, learned counsel
for the appellants has not been able to satisfy this Court about
this limb of argument. No reference has been made by him to any
legal provision or precedent to support his argument. Taking the
number of dependent family members of the deceased Shankar
Lal as ''four'', i.e., his wife and three children, deduction for
personal living expenses allowed by the learned Tribunal at one-
third cannot be considered to be excessive. But there appears a
calculation mistake in quantifying the award by the learned
Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of deceased
to be Rs.2400/- and while deducting one-third for his personal
living expenses, it comes to be Rs.1600/- (Rs. 2400/- - Rs.800/-).
Adopting the multiplier of 11, loss of dependency comes to Rs.
1600 x 12 x 11 = Rs.2,11,200/- whereas, only Rs. 2,00,000/- has
been awarded by the learned Tribunal. This calculation mistake is
required to be corrected, as has also been fairly conceded by the
learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company. Thus, the
claimants/appellants are entitled to be awarded Rs.11,200/- more
on this count.
Next ground of challenge is that a meagre sum of Rs.5000/-
for loss of consortium and Rs.2500/- each for loss of love and
affection to the three children has been awarded by the learned
Tribunal. The sum awarded by learned Tribunal on these heads
certainly appear to be very meagre and in the form of pittance. It
has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that at
the time of death of Shankar Lal, his two daughters were
unmarried being of the age of 15 and 12 years respectively. Even
his eldest son Rana Ram was of 19 years of age. His widow Smt.
Patasi is also said to be of 40 years of age at that point of time. It
can very well be presumed that all these children have been
deprived of the help, guidance and protection of their father at a
tender age. The wife of the deceased has also been prevented
from the society, company and sexual relations of her husband. All
the family members were forced to encounter a very difficult
situation because of untimely death of Shankar Lal in the
aforesaid accident. This is beyond comprehension that how the
meagre amount of Rs.5000/- for the wife and Rs.2500/- each for
the children can be considered to be adequate to gauge their
wounds.
In view of above, this Court is inclined to enhance the sum
for loss of consortium from Rs.5000/- to Rs.30000/- and for loss
of love and affection to the children from Rs.2500/- to Rs.5000/-
for three children. It is thus enhanced to Rs.45,000/- in all. In
para 7 of the memo of appeal, a sum of Rs.45,000/- has been
claimed on these heads by the claimants/appellants.
In view of the discussions made above, the appeal preferred
by the claimants/appellants deserves to be allowed and the sum of
award quantified by the learned Tribunal is enhanced in above
terms.
The claimants/appellants will be entitled to get the amount
of interest @ 12% per annum on the enhanced sum from the date
of award to its realisation. The amount so enhanced will be paid
by the respondents, jointly and severally, to the claimants/
appellants within a period of two months from the date of
receiving certified copy of the judgment.
Costs are made easy.
The appeal stands allowed and disposed off accordingly.