Allahabad High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Haseen Fatma And Ors. on 21 January, 1988
Equivalent citations: 2(1988)ACC209
JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J.
1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Allahabad, awarding Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondents account of the damages suffered by them due to death of Zahir Ahmad alias Bachcha Miyan. Zahir Ahmad is the husband of respondent No. 1 whereas father of the respondents Nos. 2 to 10.
2. At about 7 a.m. on May 19, 1976, Zahir Ahmad was going by a cycle infront of Tahsil Phoolpur on the eastern patri on Jaunpur-Allahabad load when bus, belonging to the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, No. UPZ 9549 suddenly came from behind and bit him; as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground and having received serious injuries instantaneously died on the spot. The respondents there after filed a claim petition stating that the deceased was contributing Rs. 700/- to 800/-per month to the family and on account of his death the family had lost the same.
3. The claim petition was contested by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on various grounds.
4. On the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed the following four issues:
(1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Motor Bus No. UPZ 9549? (2) Whether the claimants are legal representatives of the deceased and whether they are entitled to issue? (3) What amount of compensation, if any, are the claimants entitled? (4) To what relief, if any, are the claimants entitled?
5. The parties led evidence in support of their cases. The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus and, therefore, the Uttar Pradesh State was liable to pay the compensation. It, however, found that the deceased was contributing Rs. 500/-per month and, as a result of his death, the family had been deprived of the same. Finding his longivity of the life as seventy years the Tribunal found that the family would have received the help from the deceased for twenty five years as the age of the deceased was forty-five.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation challenged the findings of the Tribunal and submitted that the evidence of the respondents did not establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of its driver.
7. We have gone through the evidence and are of the opinion that the statements made by Malik Mishah Ahmad (PW 5), Mahboob Alam (PW6), Ahmad (PW 8) and Akhtar Aziz (PW 11) establish that the accident resulted due to negligence of the driver of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation bus No. UPZ 9549 as the deceased was on his left side. Had the petitioner been running the bus carefully the accident would not have occurred. It is due to his rashness that the accident took place.
8. On the question of monthly contribution of the deceased to the family, counsel for the appellant could not satisfy us to take a different view. The evidence brought by him on record established that the deceased must have been contributing atleast Rs. 500/- per month to the family and the family was deprived of the same due to his death.
9. On behalf of the appellant Sri S.K. Sharma urged that the Tribunal's award is illegal having not made any deduction for the lump-sum payment of compensation to the respondents. Counsel urged that in cases of payment of compensation in lump-sum the law requires a certain percentage to be deducted out of sum on the basis that certainties of life have to it care of to make the award more realistic and accurate. It was urged that the compensation assessed under Section 110-D must be 'judged' and, therefore, the guiding principle is, what was the earnings of the deceased and after making deduction which would accrue to the dependents as a result of death and the amount to which the deceased was expected to have spent on his own the compensation should be calculated. In this estimate, which will have to be multiplied by the number of years by which the life of the deceased is estimated to be cut short, the resultant effect would be the fair capitalised amount of compensation to which the dependents may be entitled. In Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur the court spelt out six aspects which could be taken into account in assessing the compensation In Bhopal v. Sudhakar AIR 1977 SC 1189 the Supreme Court held that the factors like uncertainty of life and the facts of accelerated payment that the claimant would be getting as lump sum amount and but for the accident it would have been available in driblets over a number of years should be taken note of. Hence it was held that allowance should be made for uncertainty, and the total figure scaled down accordingly. The deceased might not have been able to earn till his death for some reason or the other. Thus the amount assessed has to be reduced.
10. Hence, in the context of the said decisions, in arriving at the compensation leading to a lump sum being computed, it would be necessary that allowance must be made for certainty.
11. The Tribunal in this case, although has awarded compensation in lump sum, but has forgotten to make deduction for imponderable factors. In our opinion, the sum of Rs. 50,000/- should be deducted out of Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded to the appellant. That would be a just and fair compensation. The respondent would also be entitled to get interest at the rate of Rs. 6/- per cent per annum with effect from the date of the application till realization.
12. Counsel for the appellants stated that in pursuance of the order on the stay application made by this Court the appellant has made a deposit of the amount awarded. If that is so, the liability to pay interest would cease on the date of the deposit, otherwise the respondents would be entitled to get interest at the rate mentioned above till the money has been realised.
13. Subject to the above, the appeal partly succeeds and is allowed in part. The compensation is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- only. Costs on parties.