Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita Rani And Others vs Hardev Singh And Others on 6 December, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995ACJ1174, AIR1995P&H300, (1995)110PLR105, AIR 1995 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 300, (1995) 2 PUN LR 105, (1995) 2 TAC 142, (1995) 2 ACJ 1174, (1996) 1 RRR 173
ORDER
1. The sole question raised in this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation payable to the widow and two minor children of less than 6 years of age of the deceased. Suresh Kumar (since deceased) aged 31 years was employed as Junior Engineer. He was drawing total emoluments of Rs. 2383/- per month. Claimant Sunita Rani received Rs. 100000/- from the Punjab State Electricity Board under the Group Insurance Scheme. Rs. 1,24,041/- were received by her as special pensionary benefits in lieu of her right for compensation admissible under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Sunita Rani was employed as clerk on compassionate ground. The Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 19,200/- per annum and fixing a multiplier of 12 worked out the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 2,30,400/-. The Tribunal deducted an amount of Rs. 1,24,041/- paid as special pensionary benefits, and an amount of Rs. 100000/- paid out of the Group Insurance Scheme and Rs. 15000/- as per no fault liability clause and granted compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each to the minor sons with 12% interest.
2. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, herein after referred to as 'the Act' fixes the liability of the delinquent, owner and the Insurance Company jointly and severally to pay compensation in case of death resulting from the accident arising out of the use of motor vehicles. It further provides that the claim for compensation shall not be reduced or divided for the reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the deceased involved with respect to whose death the compensation is being sought by the claimants. Reference may be made to Section 140 of the Act. The legislature in its wisdom vide Section 141 of the Act provided specifically a right to claim compensation under Section 140 of the Act in respect of the death and in addition to right to claim compensation in respect thereof under any provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force.
Section 141 runs as under:
"(1) The right to claim compensation under Section 140 in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be in addition to any other right (hereafter in this section referred to as the right on the principle of fault) to claim compensation in respect thereof under any other provisions of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force.
(2) A claim for compensation under Section 140 in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and where compensation is claimed in respect of such death or permanent disablement under Section 140 and also in pursuance of any right on the principle of fault, the claim for compensation under Section 140 shall be disposed of as aforesaid in the first place.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), wherein respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, the person liable to pay compensation in accordance with the right on the principle of fault, the person so liable shall pay the first-mentioned compensation and-
(a) if he amount of the first mentioned compensation is less than the amount of the second-mentioned compensation, he shall be liable to pay (in addition to the first mentioned compensation) only so much of the second mentioned compensation as is equal to the amount by which it exceeds the first mentioned compensation;
(b) if the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is equal two more than the amount of the second-mentioned compensation, he shall be liable to pay the second mentioned compensation."
3. Section 141(3) envisages that where a person is liable to pay compensation in accordance with the right on the principle of fault, he shall first pay the compensation as assessed under Section 140 of the Act. It is only in the eventuality of the compensation assessed under Section 140 falling short of compensation assessed under any other Act that he shall be liable to pay the amount of second-compensation in addition to first-mentioned.
4. It has come to stand that a person is entitled to full pecuniary loss suffered on account of the death of a person for which compensation is sought. No doubt the human life cannot be weighed in terms of pecuniary loss; attempt is always made by the Tribunals to grant compensation which is just and equivalent to full pecuniary loss suffered, keeping in view the future inflation, age, dependants left, nature of the dependency, income of the deceased and various other factors. All the factors are ordinarily reflected in the multiplier adopted. One of the cardinal principle that has come to stand is while assessing compensation the governing measure of compensation is that the tort feaser is liable to pay all the damages flowing directly from tort irrespective of its expectation and the gains or benefits arising to the dependants, because of the resultant effect to the tort. The past, present and furture injury or loss of earning must be covered.
5. In our considered view the mere fact that the sufferer starts earning by the dint of his or her own efforts, would not absolve the tort feaser of his liability to re-imburse the claimants for the loss caused, by way of compensation. It is un-imaginable for social welfare legislation like the one in hand vide which the Legislature has provided for the liability to pay compensation and impliedly provided for the calculation of the same and specifically provided that the first compensation has to be assessed under Section 140 of the Act, and if the claimants are entitled to any other compensation, in that eventuality the compensation under Section 140 is to be assessed and paid and it is only if the compensation under other provision is higher that the difference between the two shall be paid in addition to the compensation granted under Section 140. The learned Tribunal probably oblivious of statutory provisions of Sections 140 and 141 has deducted compensation Rs. 1,00000/- which the petitioner got on account of the Group Insurance Scheme which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as substitute for the compensation for the tortuous act committed by the tortfeaser. Neither grant of special pensionary benefits would be a substitute for compensation nor the additional benefit could be deducted from the just compensation payable under the statute (Section 140 readwith Section 141 of the Act), which categorically debars making of any deduction on account of such payment from the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. Giving of service on compassionate ground is again totally an irrelevant consideration while assessing the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. In our considered view the fact of starting or earning by any dependant member entitled to compensation is no ground to deprive him of the compensation for the loss caused by the delinquent or person liable to re-imburse the claimant by way of compensation. Even otherwise granting of compensation of Rs. 10000/- in this era for the death of the father to minor children who are less than 6 years is not only pittance but amounts to adding injury to the sufferer in and by a judicial process. The findings of the Tribunal in my considered opinion are not only erroneous but are bereft of even reasonable plausibilities and is totally in ignorance of the law settled. Reference may be made to Bhagat Singh Sohan Singh v. Smt. Om Sharma, (1983) 85 Punj LR 1: (AIR 1983 Punj & Har 94) (F8), M/s. Ishpal Singh Pramjit Singh v. Simla Devi, (1994) 1 ACC 63 (Punj & Har) and Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. v. M. Murthy, 1989 ACJ 413 : (AIR 1989 Mad 14).
6. Deductions on the basis of inheritance because of death or deduction for any benefits accrued to the claimants because of death or injury cannot be made on any comprehensible reasons apart from the fact that it would be giving a premium to tort feaser for his tortuous act. Making the deduction would be crucifying the statutory provision of Motor Vehicles Act for granting the compensation for the loss caused, to do otherwise would result in draconian rule i.e. if person gets more by inheritance or as insurance cover and compensation figure is lower that (then) it cannot be expected that the amount would be paid to tort feaser. One cannot have wooden approach particularly in a welfare legislation.
7. In our considered view keeping in view the age of the deceased and his income of Rs. 2383/- per month and there being not an iota of evidence that the deceased was addicted to any habit or was having any extra ' expenditure on himself with such petty pay packet, he cannot be assumed to be spending l/3rd on himself. It would be reasonable to assess the dependency at Rs. 2000/- per month. Keeping in view the chances of future v promotion etc., income likely to arise out of the interest and other factors as stated above, it would be reasonable to adopt the multiplier of 13. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 3,12,000/-. Rounding up the figure we assess Rs. 3,00000/- as a just compensation. Rs. 1,00000/- shall be deposited in any scheme of Union Trust of India, in the name of each minor payable to them on their attaining majority. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,00000/- shall be paid to Sunita Rani widow of the deceased. The widow shall be entitled to receive interest on the amount deposited in favour of the minors during the minority of the children to be spent on their up-bringing. The claimants shall be at liberty to apply foir variance of any of the terms imposed above as and when need arises.
8. With the above observations, the award is modified to the above extent. The appeal is accepted with costs. The claimants shall be entitled to the above said compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till realisation.
9. Order accordingly.