AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.D. Kamat, J.—The Award dated 7th May, 1990 in Claim Application No. 343 of 1986 is assailed in this Appeal, The Claim Application was instituted by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 claiming compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- in respect of the death of Vijay kumar Kulkarni in an accident. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the widow and minor daughter respectively of the deceased Vijay kumar Kulkarni and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are his parents.
In the Claim Application it was stated that on 8th May, 1986 at about 11.40 a.m. the deceased Vijaykumar Kulkarni was waiting for a bus on Ravalgaon Bus Stop on Laxmi Road. Bus bearing No. 8404 belonging to the 2nd Appellant Pune Municipal Transport (for short "PM" hereinafter) was stationary at the said bus stop. It appears that there was heavy rush of travellers. In the meantime, a bus belonging to PMT bearing No, MHQ 4832 came from the side of Deccan Gymkhana and stopped at the said bus stop. The deceased Vijaykumar had boarded the Bus No. MHQ 4832 when stationary but it was put in a sudden motion with the result that the same collided with the stationary bus No. 8404. Deceased Vijaykumar who had then just boarded the bus sustained injuries as a result of the said collision and fell down from the bus. It is common ground that he was immediately taken to Sassoon Hospital and was admitted as an indoor patient. On 16th May 1986, it appears that deceased Vijaykumar developed some kidney problem with the result he was shifted to K.E.M. Hospital, Pune. Vijaykumar however went in a Coma and succumbed to his death on 20th May, 1986 in the said Hospital. The claim for Rs. 3,50,000/- was made by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on the ground that the 1st Appellant, the driver of the bus in question was rash and negligent as a result of which the accident arose and in which the deceased Vijaykumar died. According to them Vijaykumar was employed in TELCO, Pune as a "Semi Skilled Helper" and at the relevant time drawing wages of Rs. 1,712.50 Ps. per month plus over-time allowance as and when he worked in excess of his working hours. It was also set out that out of the monthly earning a sum of Rs. 1,200/- was spent on the maintenance and welfare of the family consisting of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The claim was also sought to be pressed by saying that deceased Vijaykumar was getting increment of about Rs. 250/- after every three years of completed service.
The claim petition was opposed on behalf of the Appellant No. 2 PWT. The Appellant No. 1 driver did not chose to file the written statement. The Claim Petition was sought to be defended by PMT suggesting negligence insofar as deceased Vijaykumar is concerned; that Vijaykumar despite having found no room to enter the bus boarded the same on the first step despite the conductor was preventing him to do so. That in any case since Vijaykumar was hanging on to the door of the bus he was the victim of his own death. At any rate it was asserted that the claim for compensation at Rs. 3,50,000/- was excessive and exorbitant. The Insurance Company, Respondent No. 5, in its written statement took the stand while denying the allegations regarding accident that its liability as per the terms and conditions of the Policy must be restricted to Rs. 15,000/- as deceased Vijaykumar was a passenger.
Evidence was led on both sides. The Claims Tribunal held that Appellant No. 1 driver of the bus had driven the same rashly and also negligently at the time of the accident and the deceased Vijaykumar died on account of sustaining injuries in that accident which had resulted from rash and negligent driving and therefore the Appellants are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Once having rendered the aforementioned findings of rashness and negligence, the Tribunal applied the multiplier method. For that matter the Tribunal found that since deceased Vijaykumar was earning the monthly emoluments of Rs. 1,712.50 Ps. from his employer TELCO out of which a sum of Rs. 1,200/- was spent on house-hold expenses of his family. The Tribunal therefore came to the conclusion that the family of Vijaykumar was depending for their maintenance on his earning to the extent of Rs, 14,400/- per year. The Tribunal thereafter observed that Vijaykumar would have lived until the age of 76 years and he would have worked in TELCO until he reached the age of 60 years. After having found that Vijaykumar was 27 years of age on the date of the accident, he would have worked for a further period of 33 years and further considering the uncertainties in life and imponderable circumstances the multiplier of 20 was adjudged and that way held that the dependency for 20 years would be Rs. 2,88,000/- and accordingly awarded the same to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The Tribunal thereafter held that a sum of Rs. 6,000/- could be awarded to the 1st Respondent widow as and by way of loss of consortium and a further sum of Rs. 6,000/- on the head of suffering and pains by deceased Vijaykumar. With the result that as mentioned earlier a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in all was awarded that too with 12% interest from the date of the application until the realisation of the Awarded amount.
The Award is assailed by the driver and the PMT. It was sought to be contended by Mr. Ketkar learned Counsel for the Appellants that deceased Vijaykumar was crushed between two vehicles i.e, parked bus and the bus which came to the Bus Stop and then proceeded and which could not have been boarded by Vijaykumar. Upon reading the evidence, panchanama reveals that the parked bus bearing No. 8404 had suffered damage by collision on its right rear side. In our view there is no much necessity of referring to the evidence on record. For, this is a clear case where the principle of res ipsa loquitur is applicable as the bus bearing No. MHQ 4832 which had been boarded by the deceased Vijaykumar had collided with a bus which was parked in its front on the same bus stop. In our view the finding of the learned Tribunal is indefeasible on any of the submissions and therefore we affirm the finding that Appellant No. 1 driver drove the bus at the relevant time rashly and also negligently.
Mr. Ketkar now assailed the Award on the ground that regard being had to the age of the late Vijaykumar and the circumstances, the use of multiplier of 20 is not justified. Mr. Ketkar indeed conceded that in cases of this type the multiplier method has to be applied but he however says that looking to the uncertainties of the life and more particularly industrial cities and the life expectancy in this country. For that proposition he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, . Upon reading mis authority, the learned Counsel invited our attention that the multiplier applied in the said decision is 12 where the age of the victim of the accident was 39. The deceased Vijaykumar in the present case was a semi-skilled and it is not disputed that he was 27 years of age when he met with the accident on 8th May, 1986 which proved to be fatal. There is nothing to show on record that deceased Vijaykumar would have worked until he completed the age of 60 years except the bare statement in the Claim Application that he would have retired at the age of 60. For the view we are taking that if it is held that Vijaykumar was to retire on completion of 58 years he had yet about 29 years to go. The further fact remains that he was employed in TELCO which is an industrial unit. Needless to say that while considering the life span of an employee employed in an industrial establishment and also otherwise in life there are uncertainties and imponderables which can never be foreseen. The sickness cannot be also ruled out. Considering all these aspects in our view multiplier of 18 in the present case in the facts and circumstances is justified. Since it is not disputed and as indeed held by the Tribunal the dependency of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 annually was in the sum of Rs. 14,400/- and multiplying the dependency by 18 the same works out at Rs. 2,59,200/- which can be rounded of to Rs. 2,60,000/-. To this figure we will add a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of consortium and loss of estate which is conventional to grant. The result is total just compensation payable is Rs. 2,75,000/-. We accordingly modify the impugned Award dated 7th May, 1990 to the extent indicated. Thus Appeal is partly allowed and instead of figure of Rs. 3,00,0007-, the same shall be substituted by a figure of Rs. 2,75,000/- in the operative part of the impugned Award. In other words, the rate of interest granted as also other directions mentioned therein are affirmed. Liability of Insurance, Respondent No. 5, remains unchanged viz. passenger liability at Rs. 15,000/-.
Under the interim orders from this Court, it appears that entire decretal amount under the Award has already been deposited with the Tribunal and some amount has already been withdrawn by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the rest was directed to be invested upon which a direction of payment of interest also had been made. In view of slashing down of total amount in the impugned Award by Rs. 25,000/-, we make it dear that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall only be entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, Out of the remaining sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-, the Respondent No. 1 Smt. Neela is awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- and minor Kumari Smita is awarded the balance amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The amount awarded to minor Kumari Smita to be invested in terms of directions in the Award till she attains the age of majority.
Appeal allowed to the extent indicated with no order as to costs.
Issue of certified copy expedited.