Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rukmabai Kulmi vs Ramlal And Ors. on 30 October, 1987
Equivalent citations: I(1988)ACC144, [1990]67COMPCAS555(MP)
JUDGMENT R.K. Varma, J.
1. This is an appeal by the claimant against the award dated June 30, 1980, passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Nimar, Mandleshwar, in Claim Case No. 97 of 1979 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000 as compensation in respect of the death of the deceased, Sadhu, who died as a result of the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. MPI 3255.
2. On July 14, 1979, the deceased, Sadhu, a young boy aged about 20 years, was walking along the road from his house towards the market when the aforesaid truck driven by the driver, Babukhan, respondent No. 2, came from behind with high speed and knocked down Sadhu who was crushed under its wheels and died instantaneously on the spot. The claimant is the mother of the deceased aged about 55 years, who had claimed a total compensation of Rs. 35,300 against the owner and the driver of the offending truck in respect of the death of the deceased, Sadhu, joining the insurer-respondent No. 3 as the third non-applicant in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case, came to the conclusion that Sadhu died as a result of the accident caused by the truck belonging to respondent No. 1 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver, respondent No. 2. As regards compensation, the learned Tribunal estimated the loss of dependency on account of the death of the deceased as Rs. 6,000 only and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000 as a lump sum payment. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in respect of the death of the deceased who was aged about 20 years and had some school education, was too meagre and deserves to be raised adequately. He further submitted that though the accident took place in the year 1979, yet by way of compensation the learned Tribunal should have awarded at least Rs. 15,000 under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), even though Section 92A has been introduced in the Act by the Amendment Act 47 of 1982 on October 1, 1982. According to the learned counsel, Section 92A of the Act is to be applied to all pending cases irrespective of the date on which the accident occurred. He placed reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shantabai S. Dhume, AIR 1987 Bom 52 ; [1989] 65 Comp Cas 206, 211 which lays down as under (head-note of AIR) :
"Section 92A is intended to provide social justice by giving compensation without proof of fault or negligence by the driver or owner of the vehicle and as such, the question as to whether the cause of action arose prior to its coming into force or not becomes irrelevant, for the material consideration for the purpose of awarding compensation, under the said provision of law, being whether the case giving rise to that liability is still pending."
4. Section 92A of the Act provides for liability to pay compensation in cases of death or permanent disablement of any person resulting from a motor accident even without proof of fault or negligence on the part of the owner or driver of the vehicle, as a measure of social justice. It may be worthwhile here to reproduce the said provision as under :
"Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. -- (1) Where the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under Sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of fifteen thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of seven thousand five hundred rupees.
(3) In any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(4) A claim for compensation under Sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement, the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement".
5. From the language of the provision aforesaid, it is apparent that if death of any person has resulted from a motor accident, the owner of the offending vehicle shall be liable to pay compensation irrespective of the fact whether there was a wrongful act or negligence on the part of owner or any other person or even the deceased. Therefore, what is required to be proved for the applicability of Section 92A of the Act is that death had resulted from a motor accident and nothing more for entitlement to compensation of Rs. 15,000 in a pending case. There is no reference to the date of death or date of accident in this provision and it would appear that the provison being a piece of welfare legislation, is intended to cover cases of death by motor accident in respect of which the question of compensation is under consideration before the Tribunal or in appeal on the date of coming into force of Section 92A of the Act even though the death of the deceased might have resulted from a motor accident prior to the coming into force of the said provision.
6. The argument on behalf of the respondents is against the retrospective operation of Section 92A of the Act since if retrospective effect is given to Section 92A in respect of death by accident occurring prior to the coming into force of Section 92A of the Act as in the instant case, it has the effect of enhancing the liability of the respondents from Rs. 5,000, as compensation as determined on merits' by the learned Tribunal, to Rs. 15,000 as provided in Section 92A of the Act, for a tort (death by motor accident) committed prior to the coming into force of Section 92A of the Act.
7. In my opinion, it is not necessary to decide the question whether or not Section 92A is retrospective in its operation. There is, however, an important aspect which must be noticed in the provision of Section 92A. By providing a minimum compensation of Rs. 15,000 for loss of life resulting from a motor accident, the legislative norm for minimum compensation for loss of life has been set forth and while awarding just compensation for a death resulting from a motor accident, the Tribunal, or the High Court in appeal, cannot lose sight of the fact that assessment of compensation on merits which is largely based on guess work must be in accordance with the principle that compensation for loss of life has to be at least Rs. 15,000. While accepting the principle that compensation in respect of the death resulting from a motor accident must be at least Rs. 15,000, it would not be reasonable to make a distinction in determining compensation in respect of the death by motor accident, whether occurring before or after the coming into force of Section 92A.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence and the award passed by the learned Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the compensation assessed in respect of the death of Sadhu, son of the appellant-claimant, is too inadequate and the same deserves on merits to be enhanced to a sum of Rs. 15,000.
9. As regards interest, the rate of 4% as awarded by the learned Tribunal is too inadequate and I think, it should be raised to 9% per annum as has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant.
10. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the award of the learned Tribunal is modified inasmuch as the claimant-appellant shall be entitled to receive from the respondents a compensation amount of Rs. 15,000 instead of Rs. 5,000 as awarded by the learned Tribunal together with interest at 9% per annum instead of 4% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. There shall, however, be no order as to the costs of this appeal.