Madras High Court
Vanitha B. Mehta And Anr. vs Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation on 8 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: II(2003)ACC107
JUDGMENT K. Sampath, J.
1. Both the appeals arise out of M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 327 of 1991 filed by the appellants in C.M.A. No. 64 of 1996, who are the respondents in C.M.A. No. 272 of 1996, claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- for the death of their daughter in an accident involving the vehicle belonging to the Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, which is the appellant in C.M.A. No. 272 of 1996. The claimants want enhancement while the respondent Corporation wants to be absolved of liability and in any event the quantum to be reduced.
2. The case of the appellants was as follows:
On 22.4.1990, their daughter Priya, was proceeding from north to south in a scooter with her sister Preethi on the pillion to her house, when an Express Bus belonging to the respondent Corporation bearing registration No. TCB 9723 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the two-wheeler from behind, as a result of which, the rider Priya fell on the right side and was run over by the vehicle, resulting in her death. The pillion rider fell on the left side and sustained injuries. The deceased was 18 years old at the time of the accident. She was a student and a part-time employee earning Rs. 3,250 per month and they were entitled to be paid compensation in a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/-.
3. The respondent Corporation resisted the claim contending, inter alia, that the accident was solely due to the careless and reckless act of the scooterist, that she attempted to overtake the bus, lost her control due to negligent act of the pillion rider and smashed against right front side of the bus, and that the bus driver was not at fault. The respondent also contended that the claimant-appellants were not depending on the deceased and they were not entitled to any compensation. The income, age and occupation of the deceased were all disputed. In any event, the compensation claimed was stated to be excessive.
4. On the side of the appellants, the appellant No. 2 was examined as PW 1. The sister of the victim, who was the pillion rider, was examined as PW 2. A doctor was examined as PW 3 and one Radhakrishnan, police constable, examined as PW 4. Exhs. P-1 to P-15 were marked on their side. On the side of the transport corporation, only the driver was examined as RW 1 and no documents were marked.
5. The Tribunal found that the accident was entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by RW 1 and that the victim was not at all at fault. In coming to the said conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the oral evidence of PW 2 pillion rider, PW 4 police constable and the sketch, Exh. P-15.
6. The learned Counsel for the transport corporation vehemently contended that the accident could not have occurred due to rash and negligent driving of RW 1.
7. A perusal of the sketch clearly shows that the victim could not have been responsible for the accident at all. The version given by RW 1 that the victim drove the scooter along the left side and finally landed on the right front side of the bus, as pointed out by learned Tribunal, cannot be believed. The conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the accident was only due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by RW 1 cannot be faulted. The finding is, therefore, confirmed.
8. As regards the quantum, the victim was 18 years old. She was a student and she had also equipped herself in typewriting and computers. She was also a good sports person. She was a very bright student as would be evident from the various exhibits marked in the proceedings. No doubt, the Tribunal did not accept that she was earning any money by doing some part-time work. According to the Tribunal, the salary certificate, Exh. P-4, produced was not properly proved. Be that as it may, the victim had she lived would have definitely come up well in life. She had very supportive well-to-do parents, who would have given her adequate education and ensured an excellent future for her and this would have, in turn, benefited them. The Tribunal held that the victim would have started earning Rs. 2,100 per month from the age of 20 and she would have contributed for a period of 10 years to her parents after which she would have got married and settled down. The Tribunal fixed her monthly contribution to her parents at Rs. 1,400/-, used a multiplier of 10, arrived at Rs. 1,68,000/-. To this a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was added under the head loss of expectation of life and Rs. 25,000/- each to the parents, who had undergone acute mental agony, and arrived at Rs. 2,68,000/- as the compensation payable. In fixing the quantum, the Tribunal had also taken the guidelines set out in the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bankarappa Naicker , to the following effect:
The paramount consideration of the Claims Tribunal must be to protect the interest of the claimants so that amount awarded to them by way of compensation serves the purpose and object of compensating them for the loss occasioned by the tragedy of the accident. As a general rule, the parents are entitled to recover the present cash value of the prospective service of the deceased minor child. In addition, they may receive compensation for the loss of pecuniary benefits reasonably to be expected after the child attains majority. How he would have turned out in life later is at best a guess. But there is a reasonable probability of the child becoming a successful man in life if he had been a bright boy in the school and his parents could afford him a good education. A just and fair calculation of compensation would be what the beneficiaries would have received from the deceased as support for their maintenance had the deceased lived and earned.
9. The deceased was equipping herself in modern technology. She had acquainted herself with computer operations and in the normal course of things had she lived, she would have earned not less than Rs. 5,000/- a month and we can also safely assume that she would have been of immense support, monetarily and emotionally, to her parents. Her death in the accident was, indeed, an irreparable loss and no amount of compensation can adequately equalise the loss caused to the parents and the sister. These days, there is really no distinction between a son and a daughter. The daughters are as much supportive as the sons notwithstanding that they get married and go out of the parental home, but still their commitment to the parents monetarily and emotionally cannot be understated.
10. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), the Supreme Court has observed that the determination in accident cases must be liberal and not niggardly.
11. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas I (1994) ACC 346 (SC) : 1994 ACJ I (SC), the Apex Court has explained the multiplier method and applied the same to determine the quantum of compensation. In the same judgment, the Apex Court has observed as follows:
The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both for self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchase.
This principle was reiterated in the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court. While advocating the multiplier method, the Supreme Court has warned against exceeding 18 years' purchase factor, which is in conformity with the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also settled law that full and fair compensation has to be paid for non-pecuniary damages and not as a matter of solace. Both, positive and negative, factors have to be taken into account to the extent to which the good things of life were taken away (loss of amenities) and the positive infliction of unpleasant things (pain and suffering). Compensation higher under one sub-head or lower under another, may be granted, so long as the award does not exceed the total amount claimed and of course there can generally be no discrimination between rich and poor victims for evaluating non-pecuniary damages and we can add that there can be no discrimination between sexes either.
12. The deceased was 18 years old at the time of her death. As pointed out by the Tribunal she would have started earning from her 20th year and according to the Tribunal she would have contributed to her parents' family for a period of 10 years. The Tribunal having regard to the present state of things should have also made provision for contribution by the deceased even after her marriage, to her parents. We can take it that she would have got married at the age of 25-26 and till she got married, it can be safely assumed, she would have contributed a major portion of what she would have earned.
13. It is also in evidence that the parents of the deceased are business people, well placed in life and they would have given her very good education and in fact they had plans to make her a Chartered Accountant. Their dreams got shattered on account of the girl dying in the accident. We can take her contribution to her parents at a minimum Rs. 2,000/- for a period of five years though she might have earned three or four times that amount and working out at this rate, the loss of earnings to the family would be Rs. 1,20,000/-. Thereafter, for a period of 13 years, she would have contributed between Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 1,500/- to the parents. We can fix it at Rs. 1,250/-, it would come to Rs. 1,95,000/-. The total amount towards loss of earnings comes to Rs. 3,15,000/-. To this, we must add a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, for loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/-, for funeral expenses Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 1,500 towards transport, the total comes to Rs. 3,39,500/-. The award by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,68,000/- is rather inadequate. The proper and just compensation payable to the claimants would be Rs. 3,39,500/-. The award of the Tribunal is, therefore, modified and instead of Rs. 2,68,000/-, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 3,39,500/- payable with interest at 12 per cent per annum. The Tribunal has awarded 15 per cent interest per annum and the same cannot be sustained. The claimants are entitled to only 12 per cent.
14. In the result, C.M.A. No. 64 of 1996 will stand allowed to the extent as indicated above and C.M.A. No. 272 of 1996 is dismissed. No costs.