Gauhati High Court
Rani Barman And Ors. vs Anupam Paul Choudhury And Ors. on 22 April, 1998
Equivalent citations: 2001ACJ578
Author: N.S. Singh
Bench: N.S. Singh
JUDGMENT
V.D. Gyani, Actg. C.J.
1. This appeal arises out of an award dated 31.5.1993 made by learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Silchar, in M.A.C. Case No. 66 of 1989, thereby awarding an amount of Rs. 60,000 as compensation in full and final settlement of the appellants' claim with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to be calculated from the date of judgment till realisation.
2. We have heard Mr. M. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents despite service of notices. It is only in case of respondent No. 2 that his name was directed to be struck off as per order dated 30.8.1995. So far as the insurer and the insured are concerned, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are duly served and despite service of notices they have not chosen to enter appearance. None appears for the respondent No. 3 although Mr. Rajen Choudhury, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama and his name also appears in the cause list but he is not present. The appeal is being repeatedly listed, it was taken up for hearing yesterday when it remained part-heard and the hearing was resumed today as well. Even today, learned counsel for the insurance company is not present.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the quantification of the amount of compensation as being meagre and urged that there is ample scope for further enhancement of the compensation.
4. Before we take up the question, as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be pertinent to note certain basic facts. Appellant, who is the mother of the deceased Sadhini Barman, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Silchar, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000.
5. On the fateful day of 26.6.89, around 9.00 a.m. Sadhini Barman was knocked down by a truck bearing registration No. ASC 6014 coming from Joypur to Silchar. It was being driven at a high speed, the truck dashed Sadhini from the backside, she sustained grievous multiple injuries and died on the spot. Her age at the time of accidental death was about 9½ years. She was studying in the third standard as claimed by the appellant parents. She was a brilliant student. The accident was immediately reported to the police who rushed to the spot. A case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The accused driver was apprehended on the spot by co-villagers and handed over to the police. The truck was seized. The parents filed claim petition which was resisted by the respondent insurance company on the usual grounds such as, maintainability of the claim petition, want of cause of action, barred by limitation and all conceivable grounds were raised to defeat the claim. The accident itself was denied, at the same time, a plea was taken that the driver of the offending truck lost control. Such self-contradictory pleas are to be found in the written statement filed by the respondent insurance company.
6. Without referring to any specific condition, the respondent insurance company has also raised the plea that there were violations and breach of conditions of several clauses and Sub-clauses of Sub-section (2) of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Neither the clause is specified nor the nature of violation so as to attract any particular clause, yet the claim petition has been denounced as vague and absurd; rather it is the other way round. The respondent insurance company has also taken a plea of statutory liability.
7. Without even producing a copy of the insurance policy, claimants-appellants examined two witnesses, while defendant-respondent did not examine any witness. The witnesses examined by the claimants have been cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent insurer.
8. The learned Member of the Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed the following points for determination:
(1) Is there any cause of action?
(2) Is the case maintainable in its present form? (3) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle No. ASC 6014? (4) Is the insurance company liable to pay any compensation? (5) To what relief, if any, is the claimant entitled?
and awarded Rs. 60,000 as compensation.
9. Now coming to the points as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be seen from the evidence of PW 1 that the deceased girl was returning after having served tea to her father in the field, which clearly indicates that she was doing some household errands. It is in the evidence of PW 2, the father of the deceased child and that too in the cross-examination by the insurer that all his children were school-going children and two of them were studying in English medium school. Although a tribal, the family background is not that of an illiterate or semi-literate, there is evidence to hold that the children, as claimed by the appellants, were good at studies. It is in the cross-examination of PW 2 that the father of the deceased child owns some agricultural land just abutting the road. This again indicates the financial status of the claimants. The very fact that they could afford to send their children to English medium school speaks volumes for itself. Now it is in this background that the learned counsel urged that the compensation as awarded is rather meagre and based on erroneous calculation. Learned Member of the Tribunal has not addressed himself to the admitted facts as emerging from evidence available on record. Placing reliance on a judgment of this court as reported in Urnan Singh Gurung v. Seva Ram Dutta 1991 ACJ 1030 (Gauhati), fervently urged that the compensation should be enhanced to at least Rs. 1,00,000. It is not a case for compensation that the deceased should have been actually earning money or money's worth or contributing to the support of the claimant parents in the instant case, at or before the death. What the law requires is that the claimant has a reasonable, legitimate expectation of some pecuniary benefit from the continuance of the life abruptly snapped due to the accident. Bearing in mind, the evidence suggests that deceased Sadhini was a student of third standard, had a fair prospect of being educated at least up to graduate or undergraduate level and given the benefits, available to the tribals in the service avenues. It is not too much to expect that she would have been well placed in life and career. Although it can be said that after marriage, she would have ceased to help her parents and learned counsel for the appellants submitted that these days, tribal girls marry at a late stage. There is no evidence on record but taking a general view even assuming if she had married at the age of 22 or 24, yet she was an asset to her parents till such time. Learned Member of the Tribunal while calculating the compensation has confined himself to the mental agony, loss of affection and the support which she could have rendered or contributed to her parents, has altogether escaped notice of the learned Member. The judgment in Seva Ram's case, that has been referred to and relied upon by the learned Member deals with accident taken place on 7.11.77, whereas the accident in the case at hand had taken place in 1989, twelve years thereafter. It is a matter of common knowledge that the living and economic conditions have undergone a sea-change during these 12 years. Applying the same standards with a mathematical precision is illogical, it thus calls for a change. Similarly, the learned Member has calculated the average age at 54 years as per census record of 1981. The accident was towards the close of that decade in 1989 and the life expectancy as per 1991 census has gone up to 67. In any case and in any view of the matter, the amount of compensation as fixed by the Tribunal is on the lesser side.
10. The evidence available on record and the services used to be rendered by the deceased in attending to household shows the future prospect. Within the range of reasonableness and legitimacy to our minds, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000 would substantially meet the ends of justice. It is accordingly enhanced. The rate of interest made payable is also enhanced from 12 per cent to 18 per cent per annum but it will be applicable from the date of this order. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The awarded amount be paid within three months from today.