Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Jhami Bai Kanhiyalal And Ors. on 7 August, 1986
Equivalent citations: AIR1987RAJ68, 1986(2)WLN632
JUDGMENT
G.M. Lodha, Actg. C.J.
1. A rickshaw-puller (rickshaw-chalak) Kanhaiyalat, was knocked down by the State Roadways Corporation bus No. RRG 8694 in an accident which took i place on 27-11-80 on the way between Chhoti Chopar and Chandpole Gate of Jaipur City. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is a Public undertaking of the State of Rajasthan. The Corporation has got separate funds for the payment of compensation as they are exempted from insurance of the vehicles. The Corporation instead of making payment of compensation to the widow of rickshaw-chalak and his kids, entered into litigation and dragged poor widow to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for filing claim petition.
2. The socio-economic pragmatic -approach exhibited by accident claims laws, expressly provides for compensation. It is customary and traditional for the State or its functionaries, on such occasions to act on humanitarian grounds and grant ex gratia monetary relief to the deceased's family. But as an anti-thesis and anti-climax of it, the Corporation contested the claim of compensation first. It resulted in an Award of compensation of Rs. 59,600/-. To add fuel to the fire, when awarded, it has challenged it now by invoking appellate jurisdiction under ' Section 110-D of theMotor Vehicles Act, depriving the widow and kids of this token monetary relief also, when she has been deprived of her husband by cruel fate.
3. With the above preface, which is the outcome of an instantaneous and spontaneous reaction of the judicial conscience of the Court wedded to 'social and substantial justice', by acting as "watch-dogs" of the Constitution; let me now narrate the facts of this case.
4. On 27th Nov., 1980, deceased, Kanhaiyalal, who was a rickshaw-chalak, was' driving his cycle rickshaw from Chhoti Chopar i to Chandpole. Bus No. RRG 8694, owned by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, driven by Sajjan Singh, driver I of Alwar Depot, came from opposite direction with a very fast speed and suddenly it took a i turn towards wrong side, with the result that the bus struck the rickshaw and deceased, Kanhaiyalal fell in front of the bus, and front wheel of the bus passed over the legs and chest of the deceased resulting in instantaneous death of rickshaw-chalak. As alleged in the claim petition, several persons tried to stop the bus, but the driver of the bus in spite of all this, ran away with the bus. The defence of the corporation was that the bus of the Corporation No. RRG 8694 was not at all going through Chandpole Bazar. It had gone that day from Jaipur to Alwar through MI Road. So, the question of accident by the bus of the Corporation does not arise, argued Shri R. Rule L. Gupta.
5. The dependents of the deceased rickshaw-chalak filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 4,12,000/- on the basis i of calculation that the income of the deceased from driving rickshaw and auto-rickshaw was to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month and out of it only Rs. 250/- were spent by the deceased on himself. Rs. 1,20,000/- were claimed by the various respondents in all for the loss of company and affection due to the death of the deceased.
6. The Corporation denied the case of the claimants.
7. The Tribunal framed in all three issues, Issue No. 1 relates to the point as to whether the accident was due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the bus driver of vehicle No. RRG 8694. Issue No. 2 relates to the quantum of damages, and issue No. 3 relates to relief clause.
8. The Tribunal gave finding that rickshaw-chalak was earning Rs. 750/-. Rickshaw-chalak left behind his wife, mother and 4 children out of whom three are minors. The Tribunal applied multiple of 12 years and calculated compensation amount which the dependants would have received from rickshaw as Rs. 400/- per month, after meeting his own expenses. The Corporation instead of making payment has challenged the Award of compensation by filing appeal. The dependants have also filed appeal. This is how these appeals have come up today before this Court.
9. Shri Ramrajlal Gupta, learned counsel for the Corporation made an unsuccessful attempt to challenge the finding regarding negligence, and has said that there was no rash and negligent act of the driver of the Corporation's bus. However, in view of the overwhelming evidence, rightly believed by the Tribunal, he could not persist,
10. Ultimately, on a careful consideration of rival contention of the parties and relevant record, I am of the opinion that the finding regarding rashness and negligence of the driver of vehicle of the Corporation is well sustained on the evidence, and requires no interference.
11. Shri Gupta then submitted that a rickshaw puller (rickshaw-chalak) could not have earned Rs. 750/- per month and in any case, his life would not have been much more as rickshaw puller, because there is serious decay in strength and stamina of rickshaw puller. Shri Gupta also made grievance against the multiple of 12 years adopted by the Tribunal.
12. Shri G. K. Bharatiya, learned counsel for the claimants, on the contrary, submitted that usual expectancy of age as held in a series of cases is 65-70 years. In this view of the matter, multiple of at least 35 years should have been allowed because the deceased was of 35-37 years of age at the time of the accident. The evidence recorded by the Tribunal shows that the deceased was rickshaw puller and sometimes he used to drive auto rickshaw having driving licence of auto rickshaw. There is no such prohibition or bar of a rickshaw puller improving his vocation at a later stage of life and hopefully, it can be expected that after struggle as rickshaw puller he might have earned better income by driving auto rickshaw, other vehicles, or put some other vocation or profession or business.
13. There is no similarity to the maxim, "once a mortgage is always a mortgage", according to which rickshaw-chalak would always earn and struggle as rickshaw-chalak only and not improve his economic condition like better profession, vocation, or business. Several persons in life have risen to great heights from very humble starts and, therefore, the deceased had the potentiality to rise and improve his economic and social status and earnings, also.
14. The contention of Shri Gupta that there is serious decay in strength and stamina of rickshaw puller, should have only resulted in some sympathy by the Corporation rather than apathy. In my opinion, the compensation in accident cases of vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, Fatal Accidents Act, and other relevant related laws, belong to the branch of social welfare legislation which is based more on consideration that the Society under the Constitution wedded to socialism or soical justice is bound to provide for the victims of the accidents and their dependents. It is primarily duty of the State to take care of them and it is surprising and shocking that public undertaking like a Corporation which is also funded to some extent by the State, contests such claims of rickshaw-chalaks not only initially but even in the Tribunal and the High Court.
15. What a poor homage is being paid by the Public Sector Undertaking of the State and State functionaries, to the social justice embodied in the preamble and directive principles of the State policy, which was made the 'bed rock' and the 'Gangotri' of the Constitution of India by founding fathers, in the high sounding and inspired words.
16. A welfare State committed to ultimate object of eradication of poverty and making a tall claim of providing utmost priority to protect poor and downtrodden, has dragged the widow and dependents of rickshaw-puller to the High Court and the present one is an ample illustration, which exhibits a very sad and chaotic state of affairs, where not only mockery has been made of all the high-sounding directive principles, but a day light rape is being committed by the State on the basic human rights of the poor and downtrodden, rule of law, directive principles, fundamental rights and the elementary values and norms which are well established in this age, where every day emphasis is increasing on 'social justice' and 'socialism'.
17. I had occasion to point out this explosive situation, when a similar attempt was made by the State against the grant of compensation to the legal representatives of two workmen who died in harness while working in the Rajasthan canal. In Executive Engineer RCP v. Smt. Rukman, 1978 Ral LW 264, "........Labour legislations like Workmen's Compenstion Act, Minimum Wages Act, Payment of Wages Act, Factories Act etc. all have been enacted for the socio-economic purpose of providing relief to the workmen and regulating their relations with their master. The compensations which are allowed to the workmen also are fairly low in comparison to the compensation which are allowed by the Railways and Airlines in case of other accidents which is Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1 lac respectively. The human life is the same whether one dies in harness while functioning as a workman in a factory or on a canal or while travelling in Aeroplane or train. However, it is not my domain to make any comment over it because it is exclusively for the legislature to legislate."
18. I had occasion to reiterate, whatever I have said above, earlier, while dealing with the quantum of compensation for a human life in New India Insurance Co. v. Zor Kanwar, (Civil 1st Appeal No. 59 of 1968, decided on Aug. 7, 1979). While expressing shock and surprise at the difference in approach to the human life by the State, violating equality of law and equal protection of law clause; I have observed as under :--
"By contesting even bona fide and genuine claim of the dependents of the deceased, who are overwhelmed with grief and sorrow on account of the death of their family head, the Insurance Company adds to the grief and misery and also spends good deal of time, energy and money which can be avoided. This also shakens the utility of Insurance."
"In the present case undoubtedly Insurance Policy existed and the amount allowed by the Tribunal being of Rs. 18,000/-was also very meagre".
"I have held in earlier judgment that when the Airlines and Railways, give compensation of 1 lakh and Rs. 50,000/- respectively for toss of human life by pure accidents, the scale of compensation is very meagre under Workmen's Compensation Act and other laws".
"The life of a truck driver, who dies in harness is no way less valuable than a person going for a pleasure trip to enjoy "Honeymoon" in Kashmir, in Aeroplane or train. Though technically Article 14 cannot be applied, it is for the legislature to consider why equality of law and equal protection clause should not be applied in spirit also".
19. It is of utmost importance, that neither the State nor Judicial or quasi-judicial officer, should treat, such cases as cases of contracts or mortgages, pre-emption or the easements, but appreciate the legislative intent to provide relief to the poor, downtrodden and weaker sections of the society. For that the only anxiety of the Court should be that substantial justice, real justice, speedy justice and effective justice should be imparted and administered to them and no technicalities or rules or procedure should come in the way. If that is not done, the very object of such social welfare legislation would be defeated.
20. The present case is a classical example of the negation of all, what I have said above and reiterated in a series of my decisions. The Corporation not only, did not pay the compensation voluntarily but put impediment by raising legal and technical defences re-enacting "Merchant of Venice of Shakespeare where Portia, put the classical defence, 'not a drop of blood'." They challenged the accident, itself, pleading that the bus No. RRG 8694 had gone on that day from Jaipur to Alwar through M.I. Road and not Chopar-Chandpole Gate. When the defence of the Corporation was found to be untenable, compensation was awarded along with the interest.
21. In a welfare State, a liberal interpretation, free from technicalities in favour of poor, downtrodden and weaker section of the society would really accomplish the human and socio-economic purpose of legislation, which have been made and enacted for the econortiic need of emancipation of the society. I had occasion to observe as under in Asstt. Engineer PWD (B & R) Jaipur v. Dhapoo, 1980 Lab 1C 1202 :
"This recognition and requirement of the Constitution is writ large on the street walls, in every workmen's colony, where half-naked, half starved people, live, mostly on earth below roof of the sky, having shaby dirty unhygienic stinking road-side or pavements space hardly enough to stretch and release the tension of the bones of the body, which have worked day and night in sun, winter and rains, around furnace, canal waters, dams and roads, bridges and factory with all perspiration and faulting and failing respiration with the sole inspiration to somehow provide half or at least one time meal to the weeping and crying children and family members who wait for him restlessly. A generous humanitarian approach is, therefore, needed both by the Courts and the State in implementation of such labour welfare legislations for giving the relief speedier and cheaper."
22. It is a pity that in spite of several warnings by the Apex Court, this Court and other judicial forums to the State functionaries and Public Sector Undertakings, Insurance Companies, and other Institutions to restrain and refrain to contest such claims, and be benevolent in approach if not philanthropic or not charitable to pay utmost to the needy and the dependents of the victims who are God cursed, the Corporation is insisting on technical pleas and objections and contesting such claims one after the other, which hungs our heads in shame when we are approaching 21st century.
23. In the present appeal, I find that the poverty and handicaps or restrains of rickshaw puller are being utilised as an argument to curtail compensation to his children and widow. In my opinion, it should be the other way. The fact that the human being in this age, when we are approaching 21st century is compelled to become a chattel and drive load of another human being in rickshaw, is a stigma and slur which tarnishes our society and exhibits that in spite of efforts for the development and improved economic standards we have not been able to get rid to this barbaric compulsion, where one human being takes upon himself the load of another human being and drives him like a bullock or camel.
24. In my opinion, the average expectancy of age being 65 years at least should be accepted in this case. Since the deceased was 37 years of age at the time of accident, multiple should be of 25 years instead of 12 years. Thus, the amount of compenstion would be Rs.400/- X 12 X 25 = 1,20,000./-. In all other respects, the Award passed by the Tribunal is upheld.
25. In the net result, the appeal filed by the Corporation (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 149/83) fails and is hereby dismissed, and the appeal filed by the claimants (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 207/83) succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned Award is modified to the extent that now the compensation would be Rs. 1,20,000/- plus Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses etc. and the claimants would get interest at the rate 12% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation of the compensation and the procedure to be adopted for the deposits in scheduled banks and distribution of the compensation would be as per the decision in Smt. Pista Agrawal v. R.S.R.T.C., (1985) 1 ACC 466. The claimants would also get costs of the appeal as well as cross-appeal from the Corporation.
26. Before parting with this judgment, I would reiterate that it is not only unfortunate but a matter which requires prompt attention of the State, as to why the poor people's money which fills the coffers of the public exchequer, should be allowed to be wasted in such avoidable litigation. In addition to the wastage of money, the time of the Court and the Law Officer is wasted in filing such appeals. In a series of decisions delivered by me, I have deprecated this practice.
27. In order to exhibit apathy, annoyance and displeasure of the judiciary against the Public Sector Undertakings, contesting such claims from one forum to the other forum and thus violating solemn and pious places made in the preample of social justice and making mockery of the directive principles, I would award additional exemplary costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the claimants. Now the situation has come when this Court is compelled to direct the Corporation to realise the aforesaid exemplary costs of Rs. l,000/- from the functionaries who opined to contest the claim by filing appeal in the High Court so that in future, before giving such advice, due care should be taken to realise that one should not burn his fingers by striking against the wall and running contrary to the spirit of the social welfare legislation.
28. A copy of this judgment should be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, for circulation amongst the Public Sector Undertakings and the State functionaries dealing with the claims of compensation in cases of accidents, in cases of workmen's compensation, and other such relevant and related subjects.