Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa And Anr. vs Nalini Kumari Patnaik And Ors. on 24 March, 1987
Equivalent citations: I(1987)ACC395, AIR1987ORI279, AIR 1987 ORISSA 279, (1987) 1 ACC 395, (1987) 1 TAC 461, (1987) 1 ORISSA LR 607
Author: R.C. Patnaik
Bench: R.C. Patnaik
JUDGMENT R.C. Patnaik, J.
1. In this appeal, the State of Orissa has assailed the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri, granting compensation of Rs. 70,000/- to the dependents of one Girish Chandra Patnaik, who died in an accident while travelling in a jeep belonging to the appellants.
2. Girish was the Inspector attached to Motor Vehicle Enforcement. Section functioning at Sundargarh. On 8-1-1977, in course of duty, he was travelling in the jeep bearing registration number O.R.N. 290. At a distance of 5 kilometres from Sundargarh on the return journey from Rourkela, while negotiating a sharp 'U' turn, the vehicle dashed against a tree and overturned, and the inmates were thrown off in the fields at a distance of about 150 feet from the road. Girish died while the other inmates were injured. Girish left behind his widow and five minor children three sons and two daughters, who made an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 2,60,000/-. It was alleged that the vehicle was being driven by the driver at an excessive speed and his rash and negligent driving was the cause of the accident.
3. The defence of the appellants was that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Girish, who was unauthorisedly driving the vehicle at the relevant time. It was further alleged that the accident was due to bursting of tyre.
4. During the trial, the witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants and the duplicate Service Book of the deceased was proved. Neither any oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellants. On the evidence, the Tribunal negatived the defence plea that Girish was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the accident, the Tribunal applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and concluded that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently, Determining the dependence at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month, the compensation was quantified at Rs. 70,000/-. The award has been assailed by the appellants; the claimants have filed cross-appeal.
5. Having regard to the materials on record, the learned counsel for the appellants has fairly and rightly not endeavoured to assail the finding that the vehicle was not being driven by Girish at the relevant time. None, however, has questioned the finding of the Tribunal that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently at the relevant time. The said contention has no substance having regard to the facts and circumstances. It is not disputed that the vehicle dashed against a tree and then overturned and moved away to a distance of 150 feet from the road. The facts speak for themselves, i.e., res ipsa loquitur. The appellants could be leading evidence rebut the inferences ordinarily available from the facts and circumstances. Neither the driver, who was driving the vehicle, nor any other person was examined to say how in fact the accident took place. The tribunal was, therefore, right in drawing presumption of negligence from the manifest circumstances of the case. A vehicle driven with ordinary care does not normally dash against a tree or overturn. The fact that it moved to a distance of 150 feet away from the road even after dashing against a tree indicates that the vehicle was being driven at an excessive speed. It appears from the evidence that at that time it was negotiating a sharp 'U' turn. I have, therefore, no hesitation in upholding the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was attributable to the negligence of the driver.
6. The award has been assailed by the appellants as excessive and by the claimants as too low.
7. Girish was aged 38 years at the time of the accident. The tribunal relied upon the Service Book of the deceased (Ext. 1) to hold that Girish was drawing salary of Rs. 575/- at the time of accident as an officiating Inspector, though the widow examined as P.W. 1 stated that Girish was drawing salary of Rs. 750/-per month and his contribution towards his family was Rs. 500/- per month. The Tribunal has been in error. Ext. 1, the Service Book of the deceased, indicates that the basic pay of Girish in the scale of pay of Rs. 500-825/- was fixed at Rs. 575/- with effect from 1-6-1975. He must have received his next increment in 1976. Besides, he was entitled to and must be receiving Deamess Allowances in accordance with the rules. Therefore, I am of the view that the assertion of the widow that Girish was drawing salary of Rs. 750/- per month was nearer to the truth and was available to be taken into account while assessing the monthly dependence of the members of the family.
8. Girish was aged 38 years and was an Inspector of Police at the time of accident. Ordinarily, he would have superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years. He could, therefore, render service for 20 more years had not his career been cut short. It has been asserted in the claim petition that the deceased has a good career and in all likelihood having regard to the number of years of service left, he would have got promotion to the higher posts. On a scrutiny of his Service Book, it appears that while he was a Sub-Inspector in 1961, he earned two consures. But from 1962 onwards, he has been receiving high commendations and G.S. marks. In all, on 26 occasions he either received commendations or G.S. marks. Of course, in 1965 he had been warned for not having supplied copies of the police papers to the accused in a G.R. Case. But his good service far outweighs the belmishes and in all probability having regard to the span that was still left to serve, he would have gone higher up in the ladder of service and earned higher emoluments. Besides, he would have been entitled to pension upon retirement.
9. The Tribunal has not adverted to these aspects while quantifying the compensation to which the claimants were entitled. Girish had five minor children. They would have grown up in course of years. So, he would have been required to contribute more towards them for their studies. Pay scales undergo revision. All these aspects do not appear to have been considered by the Tribunal while assessing compensation to which the dependants were entitled. The question, therefore, is if Girish had not been killed in the accident but had eked out his full span of life to which in the absence of the accident he could have reasonably looked forward, what sum during that period he would have probably applied out of his income towards the maintenance of his wife and children.
10. The evidence that the deceased was of sound physique shows that he ordinarily would have served out his tenure. Having regard to the record of his service -- a very good record -- in all likelihood he would have secured promotions at least to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police if not to the post of Superintendent of Police. Since the accident, there have been revisions of scales of pay. Taking all these aspects into account, I am of the view that the deceased could have earned at least a sum of Rs. 1,500/--- that also on a very low side -- per month until his superannuation at the age of 58 years. Thereafter, he would have earned compensation out of which he would have contributed towards the maintainance of his wife and children. Though at the time of death Girish was earning Rs. 750/- and his monthly contribution towards the family was Rs. 500/- per month, as the years rolled by, his salary went up and the children grew up, his monthly contribution for the maintenance of his family would have correspondingly increased. Hence, on an average I fix Rs. 800/-as the monthly contribution of Girish towards the maintenance of his wife and children. Though he could have served for 20 more years, having regard to the uncertainties of life, rule of 16 years purchase can reasonably be applied for assessing compensation. So calculated, the contribution of Girish is assessed at Rs. 1,53,600/-. Besides, the wife is also entitled to compensation for the loss of consertium which is assessed at Rs. 5,000/- In all, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,58,600/-. Inasmuch as they would be receiving a lump-sum of compensation, I reduce it to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The claimants shall be entitled to interest on the amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application. If the amount is not deposited with the Tribunal within two months hence it shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application.
11. Assessment of the compensation payable is not end of the exercise. Law should deliver justice. Therefore, it is obligatory on the tribunal to see that the benefits of the award which it passes judiciously and with anxiety ultimately reach the beneficiaries and the fruits of the exercise are enjoyed by them. Especially when the beneficiaries are weak and exploitable, the burden is more. If the amount awarded as compensation for the loss of the bread-earner in an accident is flittered away, the purpose is lost and frustrated Where, therefore, the beneficiaries are the widow, mother or minor children, some arrangement should be made by the Tribunal so that the corpus is not wasted but the beneficiaries receive the benefit therefrom. It has come to my notice that though the Tribunal in their anxiety direct investment of the amount under Fixed Deposit Schemes or in shape of National Savings Certificates, they are either encashed before maturity or pledged, thereby frustrating object. The Tribunal should, therefore, while directing deposit under Fixed Deposit Schemes in any nationalised Bank or purchase of National Savings Certificate give a further direction that such deposits should continue for the entire period and it shall not be open to the party either to withdraw or pledge the same. There should be a direction to the concerned Bank or the postal authorities so that they may keep a record thereof and not act contrary thereto.
12. In the facts and circumstances, I direct that out of the sum recceivable, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- shall be invested in shape of purchase of National Savings Certificates in the name of each daughter. Rs. 20,000/- be, deposited under the Fixed Deposit Schemes in the name of each of the sons for a period of 5 years. The balance shall be receivable by the widow. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is dismissed and the cross-appeal is allowed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 250/-.