Saraswati Bai vs Damodar Prasad and Another

G.C. Gupta, J.—This appeal filed u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is by the claimant who has only been awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as compensation on account of death of her son in a motor accident because of rash and negligent driving of the truck by Respondent No. 1.

It is not in dispute that Appellant''s son Bedilal died in the accident on 11th March, 1980 caused by the Respondent No. 1 who was not only the owner of the truck but also driver of the same at the relevant time. Learned Tribunal on appreciation of oral evidence on record has held that the death was caused by the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 1. Since the Respondents have not appealed against the award the finding of rash and negligent driving has become final. The Appellants submission in this appeal is that a sum of Rs. 6,000/- is not even a compensation for the life of a buffalo or a cow and therefore, the award should be modified by enhancing the same by a further sum of Rs. 15,000/-.

From the evidence on record it appears that the deceased Bedilal was the only son of the Appellant-claimant. Appellant''s husband is a dumb person. The boy himself was about 7 years of age. Considering the fact that he was the only son it is reasonable to assume that he would have been of help to the Appellant in her old age. Considering the handicapped husband, the value of such a son was immense. It is common knowledge that Rs. 6,000/- is not even the cost of a good cow or a buffalo. It is, therefore, not understood as to how the learned Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 6,000/- only as the proper compensation. The compensation to be awarded u/s 110-B of the Act has to be just compensation which means reasonable and something confirming to rectitude and justice. A just compensation has to be an equitable and fair compensation also. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the compensation of Rs. 6,000/- is neither just nor fair it is indeed illusory. Human life in spite of the vast multitude cannot be accepted as having become so cheap. A similar question arose before the Madras High Court in M.A. Rahim and Another Vs. Sayani Bai, , where it held that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the case of the death of a boy of 12 years is just compensation within the meaning of Section 110-B of the Act. If the reasoning of the said decision is applied to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant would be entitled to at least Rs. 50,000/- which alone would be just and fair compensation considering the inflationary trend since then. This court, however, is not able to award the said sum as the Appellant has herself prayed for enhancement of Rs. 15,000/- only in this appeal. This amount being less than what would be just and fair, this Court would be obliged to award the same. Under the circumstances, the impugned award is modified by enhancing the amount of compensation by a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- only. In other words, the Appellant is held to be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 21,000/-.

This is one of those unfortunate cases where the Appellant has been dragged into the court without any justification. The truck was insured and therefore, the entire liability was covered by the policy. The facts were otherwise clear. In spite of it, nothing whatsoever had been done by the Respondent insurance company to settle the claim. The purpose of nationalizing the insurance business was to see that cases of poor and needy are settled in a just and reasonable manner without delay. This is also the desire of our welfare State. It is unfortunate that the Respondent No. 3 which is an instrumentality of our State created for establishing the welfare order is not aware of its obligations and has taken no steps whatsoever to settle this just and lawful claim. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that interest at the rate of 6 per cent only has been awarded. Award of such a low rate of interest is one of the reasons why such cases are not settled out of court and are brought into them to be dragged on for years. The money remaining with the owner or insurance company fetches more interest than 6 per cent. Award of 6 per cent interest is, therefore, considered as an encouragement to frivolous and unnecessary litigation. The interest of justice, therefore, requires that the rate of interest is increased from 6 per cent to a minimum of 12 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the claim. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum w.e.f. 8.9.1980, the date on which the claim was filed. The Appellant shall also be entitled to the costs of this appeal. Counsel''s fee Rs. 250/-.