Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pramila Bai And Another vs Mustafa Khan And Another on 10 October, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(2)MPHT158
Author: Rajeev Gupta
Bench: Rajeev Gupta
ORDER Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Seoni, in M.C.C. No. 38/94, dated October 28,1996.
2. Ashok (8) was the only son of the claimants who are father and mother. On May 25,1994, he was walking on the road side when truck bearing registration No. CPJ-9712, driven by Rafique at excessive speed, caused the accident by crushing Ashok below his waist resulting in his death in Seoni hospital where he was taken for treatment from Barghat. Claimants filed claim petition for the death of Ashok. They claimed compensation of Rs. 6,02,300.00. The allegation is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the truck driver, otherwise it would not have taken place. Deceased was their only child on whom they could depend in future and due to vasectomy operation, there is no possibility of child birth. Due to the death of Ashok, they suffered serious mental pain.
3. Respondents have denied the claim and other statements made in the claim petition.
4. The Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place on May 25, 1994 when truck bearing registration No. CPJ 8712, driven by Rai'iquc rashly and negligently, crushed the deceased resulting in his death. As a result, compensation of Rs. 36,000.00 carrying interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 23-6-1994 till payment has been awarded apart from Rs. 500.00 towards counsel's fee. The present appeal is for enhancement.
5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
6. Shri N. Nagrath, learned counsel for the claimants, contended that proper compensation has not been assessed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal proceeded on the assumption that the supposed income of the deceased would remain the same, therefore, they would not be entitled for more than what he would have earned at the time of his death.
7. Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 2, submitted that the Claims Tribunal has assessed the compensation quite reasonably, therefore, enhancement is not called for. In support of this submission, learned counsel placed reliance on 1995 MPLJ 701 (Girdharilal Jagannath Chouhan Vs. Abdul Latif Abdul Rehman and others) in which compensation of Rs. 25,000.00 has been awarded for the death of 10 years old boy.
8. After going through the facts of the present case, evidence and statement of claimant Pramila Bai, certain facts may be taken note of. Ashok was 8 years old at the time of accident. He had passed second class examination and had taken admission in Class III. It can be legitimately expected that he would have reasonably studied upto graduation or more, taking up at least clerical assignment with further potentiality to get promotions to higher posts, thereby earning reasonable salary setting apart substantial amount to the parents who would be dependent on him. Of course, he would have also married after some time. He was the only son of the claimants who were to be dependent on him in the later part of their life. Fact that the child was not earning at the time of accident does not mean that claimants are not entitled to compensation at all. They can claim full compensation for the death of the child who is expected to grow up and they could very well depend on him.
9. We have certain decisions which deal with the assessment of compensation in case of death of a child. In 1991 ACJ 718 (R. Ayyavu and another Vs. Gopinathan Nair and another, principles for assessment of compensation in case of death of a child have been discussed with which we agree. In this case, the child was 5 years old studying in first standard. The claimants were parents and the Court allowed compensation of Rs. 48,000.00. In 1995 MPLJ 701 (supra), the child was 10 years old and compensation of Rs. 25,000.00 was awarded, although the accident took place when Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was applicable. However, the Court took into consideration the modified provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prescribing minimum compensation of Rs. 25,000.00 for loss of human life and awarded compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Then, we have Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1996 (II) MPWN, Note 210 (Dev Chand Vs. M/s. Babulal Fauzdar Bus Service) in which the Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000.00, being the minimum compensation awardablc under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (amended) for the death of a 5 years old child, on 9-5-1985. Again, in 1997 (2) MPLJ 539, (Ramdas and another Vs. Sukhdeosingh Lakhpatsingh Sikarwar and others), learned Single Judge of this Court held the claimants entitled to compensation of Rs. 70,000.00 for the death of a young girl studying in IX Class.
10. In the totality of circumstances, the decisions discussed above, facts and evidence of this case and the position of the claimants to which they have been rendered, deceased being their only son with no possibility of their bearing any more child due to family planning operation, we are of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to enhance the compensation to Rs. 50,000.00 from Rs. 25,000.00 awarded by the Tribunal. Apart from this amount, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 10,000.00 towards mental pain and suffering allowed by the Tribunal, Rs. 1,000.00 for travelling expenses allowed by the Tribunal apart from Rs. 10,000.00 for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2,000.00 for funeral expenses, and Rs. 2,500.00 for loss to the estate, taking the total compensation to Rs. 75,500.00. The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till payment. In case the amount of compensation is not paid within two months, it will carry interest at the rate of 15% from the date of application till payment.
11. Costs on parties.
12. Misc. Appeal allowed.