Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The unsuccessful first respondent is the appellant which seeks to assail the Award dated 05.10.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur, in M.V.O.P. No. 575 of 2001. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the claimants. Respondents 3 and 4 are the owner and insurer of the Ambassador car bearing No. DL-IC-H-1393.

2. The claimants are the parents of the deceased who died in a motor accident that occurred on 07.05.2001 at about 06.00 a.m. near Muppavaram Village in Prakasam District. It was the case of the claimants that on the fateful day, the deceased and others were travelling in the Ambassador car bearing No. DL-IC-H-1393 owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, from Tadepalli to Tirupathi and on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AP-10Z-5697, it hit the car on account of which the deceased and others received multiple injuries and the deceased died on account of those injuries. The marriage of the deceased was performed on the previous day that was on 06.05.2001. The deceased was hale and healthy and aged 26 years and he was working as Salesman in Co-operative "Annapurna Rice and Kirana Stores" at Guntur under Re. No. NRP 02/2/3160/1999 and earning Rs. 7,000/- per month and on account of his death, the claimants suffered mentally and financially.

9. Apropos the point of rash and negligent driving, it is discernible from the matrix of the case that on the ill-fated day the deceased and his wife who were the newly wedded couple, were travelling in the car along with others. All of them died on the spot except the one who too died later while undergoing treatment in the hospital. It was a tragic incident where in all seven persons died including the newly wedded couple. In proof of the allegation of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus of the Corporation, P.W. 2 was examined on the side of the claimants. P.W. 2 was also examined earlier at the inquest as an eyewitness to the incident. To rebut the evidence of P.W. 2, the second driver of the offending bus was examined as R.W. 1. The evidence of R.W. 1 was eschewed from consideration by the Tribunal as he squarely admitted in his evidence that he had not seen the accident and was sleeping in the bus. He further admitted that the driver of the bus was suspended by the Corporation and eventually after conducting departmental enquiry was removed from service. His evidence discloses that the criminal case filed against the driver of the bus eventually ended in acquittal. Having regard to the fact that the car was dragged to a distance of 30 to 40 feet up to the right side margin of the road by the bus which circumstance is emanating from the record, the learned Tribunal was inclined to believe the evidence of P.W. 2 vis-a-vis the evidence of R.W. 1. The fact that the car was dragged to a distance of 30 to 40 feet speaks for itself. I, therefore, see that the eventual conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus of the Corporation is quite impeccable and there are no compelling circumstances to interfere with the same.

If the child is unmarried at the time of accident but likely to be married in course of time, the Court cannot proceed on the basis that the contribution to the parents will be altogether stopped after such marriage. It may only be partially reduced. This is because of the statutory obligation in our country upon children to maintain their old aged parents. In such cases, it is permissible to assess the contribution up to possible date of marriage and later, separately.

12. In Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar . having regard to the facts which are peculiar to that case dealing with the children in the age group of 10 to 15 years who died in a motor accident case held that in case of the death of an infant, there might have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child's lifetime, but this will not necessarily bar the parents' claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived and at the same time, it must be held that a mere speculative possibility of benefit is not sufficient and the question whether there exists a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage is always a mixed question of fact and law.

13. The Apex Court proceeded mainly on the Commission's report and the methodology to assess the compensation in such cases has not been discussed and the law laid down. At any rate, it has no application to the instant case inasmuch as the deceased was married and both husband and wife died in the motor accident.

14. Turning to the instant case, the income of the deceased was fixed at Rs. 2,6007- per month, having regard to the fact that he was not an Income Tax Assessee although the annual turn over of the business was shown as Rs. 50,000/-. This assessment appears to be on low side. The parents claim that the deceased was getting Rs. 5,000/- per month. Even then it was not a case of taxable income since the accident occurred in this case was in the year 2001. Although there is no proof of actual income, the claim of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- cannot be considered as highly excessive. Giving allowance to the element of exaggeration which is natural in cases of this sort, the income of the deceased could be fixed, having regard to the nature of his occupation, at Rs. 4,000/- per month. The annual income, therefore, comes to Rs. 48,000/-. But this cannot be the multiplicand as discussed hereinabove. Out of this income, what the deceased would have spent towards his family i.e. his wife and children, should be deducted and what the deceased would have contributed towards his parents alone could be taken into consideration. Therefore, the personal expenses of the deceased and his contribution towards his wife and children shall have to be excluded. Therefore, 2/3rd of that income should be set apart for that purpose, and the remaining 1/3rd alone should legitimately be taken as the contribution of the deceased towards his aged parents. The contribution of the deceased towards the claimants comes to Rs. 16,000/- per annum 1/3rd of Rs. 48,000/-. The relevant multiplier with reference to the age of the second claimant, namely, mother, is anyway 15 as can be seen from the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the total monetary loss comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- (Rs.16,000/- x 15). The Tribunal below awarded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses which is on high side. An amount of Rs. 2,000/- should be granted towards funeral expenses. An amount of Rs. 2,5007- should have been awarded towards loss of estate but the Tribunal omitted the same wrongly. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to that amount. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,44,500/- to which the claimants are entitled to in equal moieties and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal below shall have to be modified accordingly.