Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

31. Now, we are taking up each of the case to examine the correctness of the award challenged.

32. CMA No. 29 of 1992 : In this appeal the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur in MVOP No. 178 of 1989 dated 6-9-1991 is challenged. The appellants are the claimants and parents of the deceased boy. The claim was for Rs.50,000/- whereas the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/-. The age of the boy who died in the accident is found to be 12 years. He was said to be working as a coolie earning Rs.20/- to 30/- per diam. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 that the deceased was doing the coolie work and earning Rs.20/- to 30/- per diam. However, taking into consideration that the deceased was the only son of the claimants and having due regard to their ages and that of the deceased fixed Rs.20.000/-. In such cases, it is rather difficult to get better evidence than the testimony of persons like PWs.1 to3. From the decisions already indicated, the probability of children aged above ten years working as such and earning some amount cannot be totally ruled out. The applicability of multiplier method in such cases is also consistently accepted. However, the income of such children neither can be consistent nor to be certain. With little guess work, presuming that he was earning at Rs.5/- to 10/- per day, he was able to contribute about Rs.5/- per day to the family or even at the lowest at Rs.2/-per day, the contribution to the family would be atleast Rs.60/- per mensem or Rs.720/- per annum. Having due regard to the age of the claimants the multiplier in this case should be 14 and with such multiplier and with the multiplicand of Rs.720/-, it will produce Rs.10,080/-. Since the date of the accident is 9-5-89, it is governed by Section 110-A of 1939 Act where the minimum compensation for the death should be Rs.15,000/-. Even adopting the multiplier method, the loss of expectation of life should be Rs.15,000/-. As already indicated, the death of a young son to the parents would be not only shocking but also agonising for a long time. The pain the deceased suffers is a sharing factor to the parents. It is popularly stated that it is the worst experience for parents to lose the children. Therefore, the item of compensation for shock, pain and suffering should also be considered. Rs.5,000/- should be thus added. The future prospects of the deceased cannot be totally ignored either to come up very well or atleast to prosper to the satisfaction of the parents. In the absence of material, atleast Rs.5,000/- should be granted for such item. Another item of compensation which is already indicated is the amount which the claimants might have spent on the deceased to bring him up, educate etc. and even at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per year, for 12 years they must have spent atleast Rs.12,000/-. When added Rs.3,000/- towards incidental expenses, the total compensation in this case should be Rs.40,000/-.

33. The appeal is allowed with costs and the appellants shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs.40,000/-. The amount already paid shall be deducted. The apportionment of the compensation shall be equal among the appellants-claimants.

34. CMA No.474 of 1990 : The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole in OP No.134 of 1987 dated 30-6-1988 is challenged. The appellants are the claimants and parents of the deceased boy aged six years. They laid a claim for Rs.50,000/-, but they were successful in getting only Rs.15,000/-. He was found to be the only son of the claimants. The Tribunal adverting to certain precedents and on the facts and circumstances of the case fixed a global compensation of Rs.15,000/-. In view of the age of the deceased at six years, the prospect of his earning and contributing the family may not arise. He being the only son of the claimants would naturally predicate the probability of being the source of dependence and inspiration to the parents. Since the case is covered by the 1939 Act, the minimum compensation should be Rs.15,000/-. For shock, pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- are to be added. Incidental expenses of Rs.3,000/- can also be added. The investment on the deceased by the claimants at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-per year, in the absence of any material, should further escalate the compensation by Rs.6,000/-. The total compensation in this case thus would be Rs.29,000/- which is rounded off to Rs.30,000/-. The award of the Tribunal, therefore, requires to be modified only to this extent.

35. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the appellants are entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-, less the amount already paid with costs. The apportionment of compensation shall be equal among the claimants.

36. CMA No.615 of 1990 : The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor in MVOP No.324 of 1988 dated 17-7-1989 is the subject-matter of the appeal. The appellants are the claimants and parents of the deceased boy aged 15 years, the only son and was studying in 9th standard at the relevant time. The claim was laid for Rs.one lakh, but the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.32,500/-. The Tribunal has found that the deceased was not a bright student as pleaded. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants might have spent Rs.1,08,000/- for his education. It is also stated that after he married and started earning, he could have contributed only Rs.500/- per month for the maintenance of the appellants or Rs.6,000/-per month and taking into account that the 1st appellant would have received such assistance from the deceased for 21 years after he started earning, the Tribunal arrived at the prospectus quantum of assistance to the appellants from the deceased at Rs.1,26,000/-. However, according to Ihe Tribunal, as the appellants must have spent atleast Rs.1,08,000/- for the education of the deceased boy and the balance between this and the future assistance being nominal, practically there would be no contribution to the family by the deceased boy. The approach of the Tribunal appears to be wrong. The case is governed by the 1939 Act where the minimum compensation shouldbeRs.15,000/-. The question would be what would be the maximum awardable compensation from the facts established in the case. The claimants who are the residents of Chittoor town were able to educate the deceased in AML Residential School, Hindupur by spending certain amounts. Whether he is a bright boy or not was difficult to be assessed only from the marks. The acid test is too well known that the mark sheet may not always represent the true calibre or the intellect of a student. It is also the common experience that all the bright boys in the school may not always propscr in the real life. The converse may also be true. That is not the basis to decide the future of an individual. The fact that the boy was being educated in a different place in a residential public school by spending certain amounts is definitely an indication that the parents expected him to be well educated and to be well employed or pursued his learning or any useful avocation to the pride of the claimants. Therefore, it was a fit case for applying the multiplier method. Presuming that he would have completed the normal education atleast upto Matriculation or Graduation etc., and got the minimum of the employment either in the private or public service, the monthly income could not have been less than Rs.1500/- to Rs.2000/-. Deducting even 50% of such income, the contribution to the parents or the estate could have been Rs.500/- to Rs.1000/- per monlh. The unpredictability of the future of the children is a factor which may bring down such speculative assessment of the future contribution. Even at the lowest at Rs.500/-per month, the multiplicand would have been Rs.6,000/- per annum. The age of the claimants being 35 and 40 years, the multiplier should be 13. With this multiplier and multiplicand of Rs.6,000/-, the loss of future contribution or loss of dependency should be Rs.78,000/-. Adding Rs.15,000/-towards loss of expectation of life and Rs.3,000/- towards incidental expenses, the total would come to Rs.96,000/-. Therefore, even a conservative estimation would justify awarding Rs. one lakh. In view of such method being adopted, other items of compensation would be redundant or academic.

37. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with costs and the award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the appellants are entitled to recover a sum of Rs. one lakh. The amount already paid shall be deducted. The apportionment of amount shall be mads: equally among the claimants.

38. CMA No.707of 1990 : This appeal challenges the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karimnager in OP No.209 of 1988 dated 22-1-1990. The appellants are the claimants and the parents of the deceased boy found to be aged 15 years at the time of the accident. The accident was occurred on 26-4-1988. The claim was for Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-. It is found that the claimants are aged 60 and 50 years respectively. Taking their age and the deceased into consideration, Rs.25,000/-was fixed. The deceased was studying in 10th class. The claimants pleaded that he was working as a casual labourer under a private contractor earning Rs.450/-per month. This is disbelieved by the Tribunal. A boy aged 15 years working as a casual labourer may not be improbable. His age is also such that he is able to work and earn as a labourer and contributes to the parents, both at the relevant time and in future also. But, since he was also said to be a student, his working as a labourer would be only a part time one. In either way, as in the other case stated above, taking contribution to the family at Rs.500/- per mensem or Rs.6,000/ per annum and with the age of the parents at 60 and 50 years respectively the multiplier being 10, the loss of dependency in this would come to Rs.80,000/- and the compensation as a whole would have touched the mark of Rs. one lakh. However, since the claim was made only for Rs.40,000/-, that can be awarded. Thus, the award of the Tribunal requires to be modified to that extent.