Patna High Court
Pushpa Pandey And Ors. vs Janardan Prasad Singh And Ors. on 28 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997ACJ794, 1996(44)BLJR1476
JUDGMENT R.N. Sahay, J.
1. These appeals have arisen from a common judgment and award dated 18.1.1988 passed in Claim Case No. 9 of 1984, Claim Case No. 13 of 1984 and Claim Case No. 10 of 1984. These appeals were heard analogously in view of the fact that the deceased and the injured were occupants of one car which met with a fatal accident.
M.A. No. 63 of 1988
2. There are three appellants in this appeal which arises from Claim Case No. 9 of 1984 filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Rabindra Kumar Pandey.
M.A. No. 64 of 1988
3. There are five appellants in this appeal which arises from Claim Case No. 13 of 1984.
M.A. No. 65 of 1988
4. There is only one appellant. This appeal arises from Claim Case No. 10 of 1984. The appellant is the widow of Suresh Chandra Giri who was killed in the accident.
5. The facts of these cases are that on 7.3.1984 at about 6.30 a.m. an accident took place between Madho Bigha and Orhanpur villages within the Nawadah Municipality. All the occupants of a car were going to Durgapur from Hajipur in Ambassador car bearing No. WMF 4351. The car was being driven by Rabindra Kumar Pandey. It is stated that truck No. WMK 7358 was coming from southern direction and the car was going from North to South. When the car reached near the place of occurrence the truck hit the car in a very high speed. The truck was going on wrong side of the road and the accident took place as the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased Rabindra Kumar Pandey received severe injuries and was taken to Nawadah Hospital and from there he was taken to Patna where he succumbed to injury. Similarly, other deceased Suresh Chandra Giri, Kusum Pandey and Pappu Pandey also died due to the accident and Gita Pandey and Asha Pandey sustained injuries. Kusum Pandey wife of Gautam Pandey and Pappu Pandey son of Gautam Pandey succumbed to their injuries.
6. The case of the appellants in the first appeal is that Rabindra Kumar Pandey was a flourishing young businessman. He himself owned two trucks and he was an income-tax assessee. He owned a private car purchased from the financier. The claimants had claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of premature death of Rabindra Kumar Pandey and a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the expenses of his treatment. At the time of the accident he was working in Carew Company, Asansol and he has got his independent transport business. In Claim Case No. 13 of 1984 the claimants have claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of Pappu Pandey, Rs. 75,000 for the death of Kusum Pandey and Rs. 25,000/- for the injury to Asha Pandey and Rs. 25,000/- for the injury to Gita Pandey.
7. Before the Tribunal the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. have filed separate written statements but neither the owner of the truck nor the driver of the truck filed any written statement.
8. In Claim Case No. 9 of 1984 the Tribunal allowed the claim of Rs. 1,25,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of order on the claim. In Claim Case No. 13 of 1984 the Tribunal allowed the claim of Rs. 18,000/- for the death of Pappu Pandey, Rs. 20,000/- for the death of Kusum Pandey, Rs. 15,000/- for injury sustained by Asha Pandey and Rs. 8,000/- for the injury of Gita Pandey. In Claim Case No. 10 of 1984 the Tribunal allowed the claim of Rs. 67,000/- only with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of order. It was further ordered that the amount received under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act will be deducted from the compensation amount.
9. The applicants have filed these appeals for enhancement of compensation.
10. Mr. Sukumar Sinha, the learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the Tribunal completely failed in assessing the proper compensation which ought to have been awarded to the respective claimants.
M.A. No. 63 of 198811. The question of compensation has been considered in para 13 of the award. In this case the claimants have claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation besides the costs of treatment of the deceased Rabindra Kumar- Pandey. The Tribunal has observed that the claim is excessive. The Tribunal has relied upon the decisions in Sk. Allah Bakhas v. Dhirendranath Panda AIR 1983 Orissa 203 and Lanka Sarmma v. Rajendra Singh 1984 ACJ 198 (AP), in this connection. The Tribunal relied upon the assessment order of the Income Tax Department of the year 1983-84 showing the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 15,500/-. Tribunal has held that this is the most authentic document to determine the compensation of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,290/- per month. The Tribunal has further held that if the deceased was alive he had to maintain his family, therefore, 50 per cent of this amount should be deducted towards domestic and other necessary expenses. After deducting 50 per cent the compensation amount comes to Rs. 7,750/- per annum. Tribunal multiplied this amount with 16. The compensation for the death of Rabindra Kumar Pandey was assessed at Rs. 1,24,000/-. The claimants have further claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for treatment of Rabindra Kumar Pandey. In this connection two cash memos had been filed. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,000/- under this head.
M.A. No. 64 of 198812. In this case Rs. 2,00,000/- was claimed for the death of Pappu Pandey, Rs. 75,000/- was claimed for the death of Kusum Pandey and Rs. 25,000/- each claimed for the injuries of Asha Pandey and Gita Pandey.
13. Pappu was aged about 14 years. He was a student. The Tribunal relied upon a decision in Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corporation v. Sudhakar 1967 ACJ 90 (MP), wherein it has been held that a nominal compensation should be awarded in such cases. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 18,000/- for the death of Pappu. Kusum Pandey also died in the accident. According to the evidence she had truck business and income from agriculture. Her yearly income was Rs. 40,000/-. She was aged about 50 years at the time of death. She was a widow and she was maintaining her two daughters. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 20,000/- for the death of Kusum Pandey. Rs. 25,000/- each was claimed for the injury of Asha Pandey and Gita Pandey. After considering the documents Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/- for the injury of Gita Pandey and Rs. 15,000/- awarded for the injury of Asha Pandey.
M.A. No. 65 of 198814. In this case Rs. 2,00,000/- have been claimed by the widow Girija Giri. The widow stated that her husband's income was Rs. 3,000/- per month. The deceased was an agent in Carew Company, Asansol. But no document has been filed to show that her husband's income was Rs. 3,000/-. The applicant has filed a certificate given by the Anchal Adhikari, Ekma, dated 23.8.1986 wherein the income of deceased has been mentioned. The Tribunal has held the income of the deceased to be Rs. 700/- per month (Rs. 8,400/- per annum). The Tribunal further held that after deduction of 50 per cent it would be Rs. 4,200/-. The Tribunal multiplied this amount with 16. The amount of compensation has been assessed at Rs. 67,000/-.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in U.P. State Road Trans. Corporation v. Trilok Chandra 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), laid down the principles on which compensation has to be determined. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this context referred to the decision of Hirji Virji Transport v. Basiran Bibi 1971 ACJ 458 (Gujarat), in which decision the Gujarat High Court laid down the principles for ascertaining the damages in such cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the decision of General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC). In that case the Supreme Court culled out the basic principles governing the assessment of compensation emerging from the legal authorities and reiterated that the multiplier method is the only sound method of assessing compensation. The Supreme Court further held that it was rightly clarified that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168 (1), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) envisaged payment of 'just' compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country. The court further held that the maximum multiplier can be up to 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas's case (supra).
16. In Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav 1996 ACJ 581 (SC), the deceased was 27 years at the time of his death. The proper multiplier was held to be 15. This decision is based on Susamma Thomas's case, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC). The deceased in that case was 39 years of age. His income was Rs. 1,032 per month. He was more or less on a stable job and considering the prospects of advancement in future career the proper higher estimate of monthly income of Rs. 2,000/- as gross income to be taken as average gross future income of the deceased. The Supreme Court further held that '/3rd is to be deducted therefrom by way of personal living expenses. Applying the principle laid down in aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal is plainly faulty and has to be rectified. Even otherwise the assessment does not appear to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case.
17. So far M.A. No. 63 of 1988 is concerned, the widow of the deceased claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation. However, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the prospects of advancement in future career as businessman. The income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 1,290/- per month. Applying the principles laid down in Susamma Thomas's case, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), Rs. 2,000 should be taken as average gross future income in the case of the deceased and deducting at least '/3rd therefrom by way of personal living expenses to be capitalised by adopting the multiplicand of Rs. 17,000/- per year and that figure is to be capitalised by adopting multiplier of 16 the total dependency works out to Rs. 17,000/- x 16 = Rs. 2,72,000/-. To this amount Rs. 15,000/- is added by way of loss of consortium and loss to the estate. The net compensation to which the claimant is entitled comes to Rs. 2,72,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 2,87,000/-. The claim is therefore enhanced to the above amount.
18. So far M.A. No. 65 of 1988 is concerned, the widow of deceased Suresh Chandra Giri has been awarded a sum of Rs. 67,000/- by the learned Tribunal. The assessment by the Tribunal is erroneous. The monthly income of the deceased was determined at Rs. 700/- per month. His future prospects in service were not considered. I assess his monthly income to be Rs. 1,500/- (Rs. 18,000/- per annum) and '/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The amount of dependency comes to Rs. 13,000/-. Applying multiplier of 16 the total compensation works out to Rs. 13,000/- x 16 = Rs. 2,08,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- (loss of consortium) = Rs. 2,23,000/-.
19. So far M.A. No. 64 of 1988 is concerned, Tribunal awarded Rs. 18,000/- for the death of Pappu Pandey who was aged about 14 years.
20. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was amended by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 and according to the Schedule the compensation has to be awarded.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently in U.P. State Road Trans. Corporation v. Trilok Chandra 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), commented on the mistake in the Schedule relating to compensation in respect of the death of a person aged about 15 years. The multiplicand is shown to be Rs. 3,000/-. The compensation would be Rs. 3,000/- x 15 = Rs. 45,000/-. But the same is worked out at Rs. 60,000/- as per the Schedule.
22. Accordingly Rs. 45,000/- is allowed for the death of Pappu Pandey. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the death of Kusum Pandey. The victim was aged about 50 years and her income was Rs. 3,000/- per month. According to the amendment Act, the compensation should be Rs. 50,000/-. Accordingly the claimants are entitled to Rs. 50,000/- for the death of Pandey. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- for the injury to Asha Pandey and Rs. 8,000/- for the injury to Gita Pandey. In my opinion, there is no mistake in the order and requires no interference.
23. In the result, the appeals are allowed as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
24. The claimants are entitled to 12 per cent per annum interest from the date of institution of the case till the realisation.