Karnataka High Court
Chinna Dorai And Another vs The Managing Director, Karnataka State ... on 18 June, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2003ACJ315, ILR2001KAR3784, 2001(4)KARLJ609
Author: Tirath S. Thakur
Bench: Tirath S. Thakur, D.V. Shylendra Kumar
JUDGMENT Tirath S. Thakur, J.
1. This miscellaneous first appeal arises out of an order made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,07,500/- only towards compensation for the death of a 14 year old boy on account of a motor accident. The appellant-claimants before the Tribunal, assail the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal and seek an appropriate enhancement.
2. On 3rd of September, 1992, while the deceased was on his way to school from his house on the Hosur Road, a BTS Bus, knocked him down. He was shifted to the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, for treatment where he eventually succumbed to the injuries. A claim petition for award of compensation was in due course filed by the parents of the deceased in which a sum of Rs. 7,56,000/- only was claimed under various heads. The claim was resisted by the respondent-Corporation, giving rise to four issues which the Tribunal framed and decided in favour of the appellant. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased had suffered injuries resulting in his death on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle entitling the claimants to a just compensation which the Tribunal quantified at Rs. 1,07,500/- inclusive of the expenditure incurred by the claimants on the treatment of the deceased during the time he remained admitted in the hospital.
3. Appearing for the appellants Mr. Venkatesh, made a two fold submission in support of the appeal. Firstly, he argued that the award of Rs. 70,000/- only towards expenditure incurred by the appellants, on the treatment of the deceased in St. John's Hospital and purchase of medicines etc., was not satisfactory having regard to the material that had been placed on record by the appellants before the Tribunal. He submitted that apart from Rs. 29,312.65 ps. paid to St. John's Hospital, as per the final bill produced by the appellants, they had incurred a further amount of Rs. 55,000/- towards purchase of medicines. This position was disputed by Counsel appearing for the Corporation, respondent according to whom the bills relied upon by the appellants in all justified a sum of Rs. 20,0007- only in addition to the final payment of Rs. 29,312.65 made to the St. John's Hospital.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. When called upon to support the claim for additional compensation on account of expenditure on the treatment of the deceased by reference to the documents produced at the trial, Mr. Venkatesh fairly conceded that the award made by the Tribunal does not call for any interference although it may be marginally on the lower side. In that view of the matter therefore we consider it unnecessary to meticulously examine the documents on record in regard to purchase of medicines for the treatment of the deceased. The award of Rs. 70,000/- towards expenditure incurred by the appellants is accordingly upheld.
5. It was next argued by Mr. Venkatesh that the award of compensation of Rs. 37,500/- on account ofloss of life and avocation, loss of income and damage to the bicycle which the deceased was riding deserved to be suitably enhanced. In support of that submission he placed strong reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Haji Zainullah Khan (dead) by L.Rs v Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad; Shanti Bai and Others v Charan Singh and Others; K. Murugesh and Others v M. Palappa and Others. Reliance was also placed by him upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Puttamma and Another v D.V. Krish-nappa and Another . He submitted that the Supreme Court in the deci-
sions referred to above, and the Division Bench of this Court had in almost identical circumstances involving death of unemployed adolescents awarded compensation ranging from Rs. 1 lakh to 1,50,000. He submitted that applying the ratio of the said decisions to the instant case, the compensation awarded to fhe appellants could be enhanced from Rs. 37,500/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal.
6. On behalf of the respondents, it was argued that in case of death of minor children or adolescents compensation had to be of necessity only symbolic. Award of compensation in such cases could at best be on conventional sums and not relatable to any determinable pecuniary benefit which the parents may have expected from the deceased. Reliance in support of that proposition was placed upon two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v Annappa Vaidya and General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Another v Yellappa Dharmoji Kittur and Another .
7. In Haji Zainullah Khan's case, supra, the deceased was a student aged about 20 years and studying in the first year B.Sc. The parents of the deceased had made a claim of Rs. 1,46,900/- which was rejected on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. Reversing that finding the Supreme Court held that the accident had occurred primarily on account of the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The Court also held that a claim for Rs. 1,46,900/- was a meagre sum of money and on the lower side. Keeping in view the time lapse and also the fact that the Courts below had not gone into the question of quantum of compensation, the amount claimed could according to the Court be rounded off to Rs. 1,50,000/- to be paid with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the claim till actual payment.
8. In Shanti Bat's case, supra, also the deceased was a 18 year old boy, who was run over by a truck. The Tribunal had after recording the evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- only towards compensation against which an appeal before the High Court failed. In a further appeal before the Supreme Court, on behalf of the claimants, the Court held that keeping in view the age of the deceased, the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- was too meagre. The Court observed that even taking a reasonable view of the amount which the deceased would have earned had he survived, considering the future economic prospects of the deceased, the amount awarded to the claimants could be raised to Rs. 1,50,000/-.
9. In K. Murugesh's case, supra, the Tribunal had awarded compensation at Rs. 30,000/- only for the death of an 18 year old boy which was enhanced to Rs. 35,800/- by the High Court in appeal. In a further appeal by the claimants, the Court looking to the youth of the deceased and the expectation which he would have from life, enhanced the compensation to a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim benefit till payment.
10. Similarly, in the Division Bench case relied upon by Mr. Venkatesh, also the claim related to the death of a 14 year old boy. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Haji Zainullah Khan's case, supra, this Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 1,50,000/-.
11. It would therefore appear that in cases involving the death of an adolescent not involved in any vocation and not providing any pecuniary assistance to their parents also, the Supreme Court has considered grant of compensation to be legally permissible. The decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Annappa Vaidya and Yel-lappa Dharmoji Kittur, supra, do not lay down any contrary proposition of law. It is in fact noteworthy that in both these cases the award of compensation for the death of the adolescents was upheld by this Court although while doing so the Court observed that while dealing with cases involving death of adolescents and children considerations are somewhat different. In Annappa Vaidya's case, supra, the Court noticed the special distinctions that exist in the Indian conditions in the following words:
"There are some special distinctions that must be noticed in Indian conditions. The loss of the parents may not be limited to prospective pecuniary losses, in terms of money contributions. Dependency consists not only of financial contributions, either present or prospective, but also of the value of goods and services. It will be unrealistic to think, particularly, in the context of Indian life that adolescent children would not be in a position to contribute some services to the family. In the conditions of rural life boys and girls offer services to the family in many ways and are even known to take care of a small-time family business or avocation. How these services should be sounded in terms of money would again turn upon the facts of a particular case. This loss of services is not merely prospective. It is both present and prospective. Prospectively, in later life the services which Indian parents look forward to from a grown up son, apart from those merely of emotional content, are so varied and diverse that they can hardly be exhaustively enumerated. It appears that it may not also be permissible to think in terms of setting-off the value of these services against the expenses of food, shelter and raiment of the children. These expenses are liable to be set-off not against the value of their services but against the joys and other rewards of family life and the many, many ways in which children enliven, and bring meaning to a home as they alone could do".
It is therefore evident that while in principle award of compensation for the accidents involving death of adolescents has been acknowledged, the question that really arises for consideration is as to what that compensation should be. The Tribunal has in the instant case awarded a sum of Rs. 37,000/- only under various heads apart from the award made towards expenditure on the treatment of the deceased. Having regard to the age of the deceased, the age of his parents, appellants before us, and keeping in view the amount that has been awarded by the Courts in similar circumstances, we consider it is just and proper to enhance the compensation from Rs. 37,500/- to Rs. 1,37,500/- to be paid with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the making of the claim till the date of actual payment. This amount shall be over and above Rs. 70,000/- representing the expenditure incurred by the appellants in the treatment of the deceased.
12. In the result, this appeal succeeds but only in part. The judgment and order of the Tribunal shall stand modified to the extent indicated above. Since a part of the amount awarded by the Tribunal had been kept in a fixed deposit in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Others, we do not consider it necessary to direct a further deposit in the facts and circumstances of this case. We however make it clear that the enhanced compensation now awarded by us, shall be shared equally by the appellants.
13. The parties are left to bear their own costs.