Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find out whether the appellants are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this appeal.

The appellants are the parents of the deceased Tikaram, who died in a road accident on 19.07.1992 on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle tractor bearing registration No. RJX 5532 by the driver, as he was traveling in the trolley which was turned upside down and he fell down from the trolley and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. The FIR was registered with the Police Station Uniara, Tonk being case No.121/92. After investigation in the case, charge-sheet No.81/92 (Ex.2) was filed on 30.07.1992 against the first respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle and its owner the respondent No.2. A site map (Ex.3) was drawn up, post-mortem of the deceased was conducted and post-mortem Report was marked as Ex.7. The claimants, being the appellants- parents, who have lost their son at the age of 10 years in the motor vehicle accident and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 - the Insurance Company, preferred claim petition under Section 140 read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'M.V. Act') claiming compensation for Rs.15,63,000/- under the headings of loss of dependency, mental agony, loss of love and affection, expenses incurred for carrying dead body and performing last rites of the deceased son as per Hindu customs. Further, they have, inter alia, pleaded that the son would have earned a sum of Rs.2000/- p.m. after the age of 18 years and he would have lived upto 70 years, therefore, multiplied by 52 for claiming the financial assistance that he could have rendered to the parents, the same is worked out to Rs.12,48,000/-.

“that at the time of accident he was carrying paddy and he was one field away from the place of accident and he reached there by running. Before him, several other persons also reached the site of the accident and he was examined by the Investigating Officer and the same is accepted as true after understanding the same”.

AW-1, the father of the deceased boy has also spoken about the manner in which accident took place and his son Tikaram died and had produced the documentary evidence referred to supra in justification of the case pleaded by the appellants. In his evidence, he has stated that Tikaram was sitting in the trolley of the tractor and the tractor was driven by its driver rashly and negligently on account of which the trolley turned down and his son sustained grievous injuries and died. The suggestion put to AW-1 in his cross-examination by the lawyer of the Insurance Company to the following effect “this is correct that when accident took place I was at home. It is the incident of 5 p.m. when my son had gone to graze cattle. My son was made to sit in the trolley by the tractor wala.” The lawyer of the Insurance Company has not challenged the evidence of AW-2 that the deceased was traveling in the trolley of the tractor and accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver. Therefore, the fact of accident that took place on 19.07.1992 at 5.00 p.m. is not challenged by the lawyer of the Insurance Company at all. Apart from the said fact, no rebuttal evidence adduced by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal in the claim proceedings. It has also not obtained permission from the Tribunal under Section 170(b) of the M.V. Act to contest the case on the defence of the insured as the driver and the insured both remained ex-parte in the proceedings before the Tribunal and therefore, it could not have contested the case on merits as held by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi reported in 2002(7) SCC 456. It is also not clear in the counter statement filed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal that the claim petition was filed by the appellants on account of collusion between them and respondent Nos.1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the vehicle respectively.

16. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal should have considered both oral and documentary evidence referred to supra and appreciated the same in the proper perspective and recorded the finding on the contentious issue No. 1 & 2 in the affirmative. But it has recorded the finding in the negative on the above issues by adverting to certain statements of evidence of AW-1 and referring to certain alleged discrepancies in the FIR without appreciating entire evidence of AW-1 and AW-2 on record properly and also not assigned valid reasons in not accepting their testimony. The Tribunal should have taken into consideration the pleadings of the parties and legal evidence on record in its entirety and held that the accident took place on 19.07.1992, due to which Tikaram sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same and the case was registered by the Uniara Police Station under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC read with Sections 133 and 181 of the M.V. Act against the first and second respondents. The registration of FIR and filing of the charge-sheet against respondent Nos.1 & 2 are not in dispute, therefore, the Tribunal should have no option but to accept the entire evidence on record and recorded the finding on the contentious issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the appellants. Further, it should have held that the deceased son died in the tractor accident, driven by first respondent rashly and negligently, but it has answered the above contentious issue Nos. 1 & 2 in the negative and therefore, we have to set aside the said erroneous findings as the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the entire evidence both oral and documentary properly to answer the issue Nos.1 & 2 in the affirmative. From the perusal of the evidence elicited in the cross-examination of AW-1 – the father and AW-2 who reached the spot immediately after the accident, he had seen the accident and narrated that the deceased boy had sustained grievous injuries in the accident and succumbed to the same. The evidence on record proved that the deceased sustained grievous injuries in the accident on account of which he died. The Insurance Company by cross- examining the witness No. AW-2 has categorically admitted the accident, as its counsel had put the suggestion to him the relevant portion of which is extracted above, which portion of evidence clearly go to show that in the accident the deceased died, but the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence of AW-2 and also the documentary evidence referred to supra, while recording the finding of fact on the contentious issue No.1. The counter affidavit of respondent No.1 filed in these proceedings cannot be relied upon by this Court at this stage as he did not choose to appear before the Tribunal, though he had filed statement of counter and neither he nor the Insurance Company adduced rebuttal evidence by obtaining permission from the Tribunal under Section 170(b) of M.V. Act to avail the defence of the insured respondent No.2, as the Insurance Company has limited defence as provided under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act. But on the other hand, by reading the averments from the paragraphs extracted from the affidavit of respondent No.1, the driver would support the case of the appellants.

“6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident:

..............

(a) Non-earning persons – Rs.15,000/- p.a.” The aforesaid clause of the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, is considered by this Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v.

State of Bihar & Ors.[2], while examining the tortuous liability of the tort-feasor has examined the criteria for awarding compensation for death of children in accident between age group of 10 to 15 years and held in the above case that the compensation shall be awarded taking the contribution of the children to the family at Rs.12,000/- p.a. and multiplier 11 has been applied taking the age of the father and then under the conventional heads the compensation of Rs.25,000/- was awarded. Thus, a total sum of Rs.1,57,000/- was awarded in that case. After noting the submission made on behalf of TISCO in the said case that the compensation determined for the children of all age groups could be double as in its view the determination made was grossly inadequate and the observation was further made that loss of children is irrecoupable and no amount of money could compensate the parents. Having regard to the environment from which the children referred to in that case were brought up, their parents being reasonably well-placed officials of TISCO, it was directed that the compensation amount for the children between the age group of 5 to 10 years should be three times. In other words, it should be Rs.1.5 lakhs to which under the conventional heads a sum of Rs.50,000/- should be added and thus total amount in each case would be Rs.2 lakhs. Further, in the case referred to supra it has observed that in so far as the children of age group between 10 to 15 years are concerned, they are all students of Class VI to Class X and are children of employees of TISCO and one of the children was employed in the Company in the said case having regard to the fact the contribution of the deceased child was taken Rs.12,000/- p.a. appears to be on the lower side and held that the contribution of such children should be Rs.24,000/- p.a. In our considered view, the aforesaid legal principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa's case with all fours is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand having regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years' old, who was assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation which is an undisputed fact. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non- earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs.30,000/- and further taking the young age of the parents, namely the mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident, by applying the legal principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[3], the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 x 15 = 4,50,000 and 50,000/- under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas[4], which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa's case and the said amount under the conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the death of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this case also we award Rs.50,000/- under conventional heads. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons the said amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellants. The said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. by applying the law laid down in the case of Municipal Council of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy[5], for the reason that the Insurance Company has been contesting the claim of the appellants from 1992-2013 without settling their legitimate claim for nearly about 21 years, if the Insurance Company had awarded and paid just and reasonable compensation to the appellants the same could have been either invested or kept in the fixed deposit, then the amount could have earned five times more than what is awarded today in this appeal. Therefore, awarding 9% interest on the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants is legally justified.