Delhi High Court
Milan Chaudhuri And Anr. vs Surinder Singh And Ors. on 1 September, 1995
Equivalent citations: I(1996)ACC259, 1997ACJ493, 61(1996)DLT131, 1995(35)DRJ191
JUDGMENT C.M. Nayar, J.
(1) The present appeal is directed against the Award dated January 28, 1982 of Shri R.K.Sain, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The appellants who are the parents of the deceased Master Pradipto Chaudhuri filed petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the respondents for compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs alleging that on March 13, 1975, at about 18.15 hours, when the deceased, aged about 13 1/2 years was going along Pandara Road on his cycle,Bus No. DLP-5862 suddenly turned to left without giving any indication and with such speed that it went partially on the pavement and hit the deceased. The driver drove away the vehicle without stopping after the accident. It was, therefore, alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. The deceased was in prime of youth and could have lived a long life but for this unfortunate accident. He was the only son of the appellants and would have looked after and maintained them in their old age. Respondent No.1 was the driver while respondents 2 to 4 were the owners of the bus which was insured with respondent no.5.
(2) Respondents 4 and 5 only contested the petition. Respondent no.4 alleged that it was the Finance company which had given the vehicle on Hire Purchase Agreement to respondent no.3 as hirer and one Gurcharan Singh as Guarantor. They were the persons in possession of the vehicle under Hire Purchase Agreement. Respondent No.4, therefore, was not liable. It was further pleaded that respondent no.1 Surinder Singh, the alleged driver of the bus was never in service or employment of respondent No.4 nor respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle in the course of employment of respondent No.4. The insurer of the vehicle, respondent no.5 was alleged to have taken up the defense of owner and the driver but no written statement was filed either on behalf of the Insurance Company or on behalf of owner or driver.
(3) The following issues were framed: 1. Whetherlate Pradipto Chaudhury sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.DLP-5862 on the part of its driver Respondent No.1? 2. Whether petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased? 3. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled and from whom? 4. Relief.
(4) The Tribunal held that the accident was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of Bus No. DLP-5862 by respondent no.1. The said finding was based on appreciation of evidence on record and also for the reason that respondent No.1 was convicted for causing death by rash and negligent driving by the trial court as upheld by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. There is, therefore, no infirmity in this finding. The same is, accordingly, affirmed.
(5) The appellants were held to be the legal representatives of the deceased as he was their only son and this issue was decided in their favor.
(6) The quantum of compensation was considered by the Tribunal while disposing of Issue No.3. The deceased was the only son of the appellants and was aged about 13 1/2 years of age at the time of his death. He was studying in 8th class in Air Force Central School. The appellants stated that the deceased was a very intelligent boy and he got scholarship in Junior Science Talent Scholarship Contest. It was further stated that the deceased would have been their only asset after retirement and in old age. Wing Commander P.K.Chaudhury, appellant No.2, appeared as PW1 and deposed that the deceased was his only son and was studying in Viii standard in Air Force Central School. He was almost ranking amongst the first three. There was history of longevity of life in the family and it was contended that the deceased would have lived for many years and looked after the appellants. The future of the appellants became dark and they have no aim and all their hopes have been shattered on account of the unfortunate death of their only son in the accident.
(7) The insurer of the vehicle, respondent No.5, took the pleas that copy of the policy would indicate that the liability of the Company was limited to the extent of Rs.50,000.00 and the deceased was not an earning hand and the death has caused no monetary loss to the appellants. Hence they are only entitled to token compensation for mental shock and agony and the claim was highly exhorbitant. The Tribunal accepted the contentions of the appellants and it may be relevant to reproduce the finding, as contained in the following paragraph: "THERE is no dispute to this fact that the death of only son in the later stages of life is such a terrible loss that no amount of compensation can provide adequate compensation for the mental physical pain and agony suffered by the parents. This is also a fact that such a loss darkens the entire future life of parents. In Indian society parents do look forward to fall back upon their sons for help, both physical and material, when they require the same. But at the same time this also cannot be disputed that the deceased was yet a school going boy aged about 13 1/2 years studying in 8th standard and was giving no monetary help to the parents, at the time of his death. This also stands proved on record that the deceased was a brilliant child because evidence of petitioners to that extent has not been challenged at all."
(8) The learned judge on the basis of the findings as recorded above, awarded a meagre amount of Rs.15,000.00 as adequate compensation in the facts and circumstances of this case. This approach for determining the amount of compensation in the case of death of a young boy of 13 1/2 years who was a good student, cannot be appreciated. The basis of the award of amount of Rs.15,000.00 has not been explained and it is no-where stated as to how this sum can represent just, fair and reasonable compensation for the parents who have lost their only son. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in Smt. Kaushalaya Devi & others v. Bhola Ram & others 1995 (5) Scale 62 which has been rendered in similar facts and circumstances may be of great relevance in the present case. The following paragraphs 2 and 3 read as follows : "2. THIS appeal by special leave arises out of the award made in a motor accident claim. The deceased was a young girl aged about 16 years who was studying in the pre-medical class. The claimants are her parents. The claim made was very responsible. A total amount of rupees one lac including a sum of Rs.5,000.00 spent on her treatment was the entire claim. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, dismissed the entire claim. The view taken by the Tribunal is indeed shocking. The Tribunal took the view that there could be no pecuniary loss to the parents of the deceased since the parents must have been spending money for her upkeep and education. The Tribunal went to the extent of saying that apart from not earning anything, "she must rather be a liability for the applicants. So because of her burden, the applicants cannot be said to have suffered any pecuniary loss". The entire claim, therefore, was dismissed. The claimants' appeal to the High Court succeeded only partly in as much as the learned Single Judge awarded Rs.36,000.00 as compensation in addition to Rs.4,000.00 as medical expenses or in all a sum of Rs.40,000.00. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this appeal by special leave. 3. The facts narrated earlier are sufficient to indicate that there can be no question of denying to the claimants the sum of rupees one lac as compensation for the death of their young daughter when that is the total amount claimed by them. No detailed discussion is required for determining that amount as compensation to be paid in the case of the death of a 16 years old college girl who apparently had a bright future being a student of pre-medical class. We are constrained to observe that the order made by the Tribunal discloses utter insensitivity to human feelings and is perverse. It is unfortunate that the High Court also did not step in to remedy that injustice by awarding the full amount of compensation claimed which was the meagre sum of rupees one lac only and, undoubtedly, a very reasonable claim."
(9) Similarly in another case which dealt with the award of compensation as a result of the death of a young student aged 20 years and studying in B.Sc. 1st Year was considered by the Supreme Court as reported in Haji Zainullah Khan (Dead) by LR's. v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad 1994 Acj 993 and an award of a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 was assessed as compensation to the claimants.
(10) The Insurance Company, respondent no.5 has raised the plea of limited liability to the extent of Rs.50,000.00 only. This was not examined by the Tribunal as the claim was allowed only to the extent of Rs.15,000.00. Copy of the Insurance policy has been filed as Ex.R.5W1/A which indicates that the policy was comprehensive covering the period of accident. It was not proved on record that the additional premium to cover unlimited liability to third party risk was not paid. The policy was not an `Act only' policy and the premium of Rs. 1738.00 was paid to the company. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the liability of the Insurance Company was only confined to the extent of Rs.50,000.00 which was necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.. The Insurance Company is, however, amply protected by the provisions of Section 149(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended on 14th October, 1988 which is in pari materia to the earlier provisions, as contained in Section 96(4) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. They shall, therefore, be at liberty to recover the money from the insured and this judgment will not stand in the way, provided the Company is able to establish that their liability is not unlimited. This view is upheld in the judgment of this Court in The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mrs. Leelawati R.Adyanthaya and others (1976) 12 Dlt 163 which is followed in The National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Smt. Harjeet Kaur & Ors.ÿ. The question now arises as to what amount of compensation, the appellants are entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The deceased was a young boy of 13 1/2 years and was a brilliant student. He was the only son of the appellants and their mental pain and agony can be termed as monumental which cannot be compensated in terms of money. It is not possible to equate money with human suffering as a result of the tragic loss as no amount can restore the mental state and happiness of the appellants. The Courts can only award compensation for such loss as far as money can compensate. This is the least that can be done when the parents are shattered by the unfortunate death of their only son. 12. There is no doubt that the deceased was not earning any amount because he was yet studying in school. There was all the same every likelihood of his performing well in life as he was bright in studies as well as in extra-curricular activities. The mental pain and suffering as well as continuous agony to the appellants can be termed as enormous. Taking an over all view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and on the basis of the law as stated by the Supreme Court in the above said two judgments, it will be just, fair and reasonable to assess the compensation in favor of the appellants in the sum of Rs. one lakh. The said amount shall be payable by the respondents who shall be jointly and severally liable. The appellants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation and costs, which are quantified at Rs.2,500.00.