1. These two appeals, F.A.F.O Nos. 268/1981 and 281/1982 are being decided by one judgment as these appeals pertain to compensation claimed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in respect of the accident in which one Prem Chandra has died.
2. By virtue of the Appeal No. 268/1981 application of the claimants was granted and they were awarded Rs. 57,600/- compensation jointly which was to be divided equally among them, each claimants is getting Rs. 14,400/-. There were four claimants in all. The Appeal No. 281/1982 is against an order whereby mathematical mistake is corrected in the judgment dated 1-12-1980 and the compensation has been raised to Rs. 81,600/-.
3. Before adverting to the Appeal No. 281/1982 which is against enhanced amount of compensation it would be advantageous to give brief resume of the facts. The deceased Prem Chandra who was 26 years' old is said to have met with an accident with Bus No. UTW 1802 owned by the appellants. It was alleged by the claimants that the deceased was running an Ice Candy Factory and was earning an amount of Rs. 800/-. On 1st August (sic) is said to have cause the death of the deceased by rash and negligent driving of the bus. Deceased was taken to the hospital by his uncle Sri Trilok Chandra, claimant No. 1 but the deceased succumbed to his injuries and died in the hospital. Post-mortem report was conducted and cause of death of the deceased was fatal injuries caused to the deceased by the driver of the bus. The claimant No. 2 Smt. Sunia Devi is a widow of the deceased and claimants Nos. 3 and 4 were two minor sons of the deceased at the time of his death.
4. The claim petition was filed jointly by the widow and two sons of the deceased by his father's brother Sri Trilok Chandra on the ground that Trilok Chandra and the deceased were living in a joint family. An objection seems to have been raised by the appellants about the maintainability of the petition which was overruled by the court below.
5. On facts, the Tribunal had held that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus, Babu Lal, respondent No. 5 in this appeal. The opposite party had pleaded that the deceased was riding his cycle without care and caution and because of his own negligence he has dashed against the bus in question when the bus was taking a turn. The driver of the bus had tried his best to avoid the accident but because of the deceased's own fault the accident on a turning point of the road became inevitable. The evidence was led by both the parties on the issues framed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has held that as a matter of fact deceased died because of a rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 5 who was at that point of time in the service of the appellants as a driver. The defence put forth by the appellants and by the respondent No. 5 was not believed as in the opinion of the Tribunal it was neither possible nor plausible to believe the defence version put forth by the appellants before the Tribunal. The Tribunal on the question of compensation has held as under in its judgment under repeal:—
“The deceased was a young man of 26 years of age. He had fair chances of survival for other 24 years, although Trilok Chandra, P.W 4 and Smt. Sunia Devi, P.W 3, have deposed that the deceased could live for about 80 years. I think it would be fair to assume that the deceased would have lived for sixty years. Calculating the loss for twenty four years suffered by the claimants on account of death of Prem Chandra alias Munna Lal and in the light of findings earlier recorded that the claimants had suffered loss of Rupees 200/- p.m due to death of Sri Prem Chandra alias Munna Lal, I find that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rupees 57,600/- in all. This amount is divided into four claimants and, thus, each claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs. 14,400/-.”
6. The Tribunal did not believe that deceased was earning Rs. 800/- per month. The evidence in this regard in the opinion of the Tribunal was contradictory, therefore, the Tribunal has fixed income of the deceased at Rs. 300/- p.m out of Rs. 300/- p.m in the opinion of the Tribunal, deceased might been spending Rs. 100/- on his person and contributing Rs. 200/- p.m only to his family so it has held that family of the deceased was deprived of earning of the deceased @ Rs. 200/- p.m
7. The life expentency of the deceased was fixed by the Tribunal at 60 years. The evidence was led that life expentency in the family was 80 years. However, the Tribunal did not believe 80 years as life expentancy of the deceased and found that the deceased might have lived up to the age of 60 years. Deducting 26 years of his life from the remainder period of his life, the Tribunal held that family is deprived of the deceased's earning for 24 years only. Though on the basis of the findings of the Tribunal family is deprived of the earnings of the deceased for 36 years. The Tribunal, therefore, applied multiple 24 × 12 × 200 which comes to Rupees 57,600/-.
8. The earning capacity of the deceased at Rs. 300/- p.m as found by the Tribunal does not appear to be on higher side. It is the correct finding with regard to income of the deceased based on evidence, therefore, no fault can be found with this finding. Deceased has been contributing Rs. 200/- p.m to the family and spending Rs. 100/- p.m on his own self also does not appear to be wrong. No fault can be found with these findings of the Tribunal. The average life expectancy of the deceased at 60 years also is not bad in law. There was evidence that average life expectancy in the family was 80 years but Tribunal has taken a reasonable view of fixing it at 60 years which is not on the higher side. The Tribunal seems to have committed mathematical error in applying the multiplier. The multiplier should have been 34 × 12 × 200 which comes to Rs. 81,600/- once the Tribunal gave a positive finding that deceased was 26 years of age at the time of his death and his legitimate life expectancy was 60 years. He had to calculate compensation @ Rs. 200/- p.m for the remainder period of his life to the members of his family.
9. The claimants have filed cross-objections for the enhancement of the compensation. The delay in finding the cross-objections have been condoned on 11-4-1989. In the cross-objections it is stated among other things that compensation may be enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000 plus interest @ 17% per annum from the date of accident till the amount is realised. It is stated that Rs. 57,600/- is a meagre amount and Tribunal's calculation for arriving at this amount is critisized. It is further submitted that the claimants have deprived of Rs. 800/- p.m, therefore, the calculation of compensation should have been made on the loss of Rs. 800/- p.m to the family. It is stated that claimants are deprived of the interest on the compensation in violation of law. It is also claimed that average life expectancy in the family was 85 years which has been fixed at 60 years only. On these ground it is prayed that amount of compensation may be enhanced.
10. The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that amount of compensation was not calculated properly. However, if calculations were proper, ⅓rd deduction was to be made under law for lump sum payment.
11. In my opinion only two points are required to be considered which arise from the appeal and from the cross-objections:—
(i) Whether ⅓rd deduction was required to be made by the Tribunal from the amount of compensation for paying the compensation in lump sum.
(ii) Whether the interest was to be paid to the claimants on the amount of compensation and if so, from which date.
12. The accident has taken place on 1st of August, 1977. The appellants seem to have been paid in terms of the interim order of this Court dated 11-5-1981 ½ of the decretal amount which they were directed to deposit before the court below. That would mean that only Rs. 28,000/- have been paid to the claimants so far. After about more than 15 years the balance amount has not been paid to the claimants, therefore, it is not fit case in which any amount is liable to be deducted on account of lump sum payment. In Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 567 (609) : (AIR 1992 SC 1261), it was held that where the accident had taken place in 1977 and litigation was coming to an end after 15 years, the value of rupee dwindling due to high rate of inflation, there was no justification for making deduction due to lump sum payment. It was further held that determination of quantum must be liberal because law values life and limb in the generous scales. The following observation was made by the Supreme Court in this regard (at pp. 1262-63 of AIR):
“We are of the view that deduction of ⅓rd out of the assessed compensation on account of lump sum payment is not justified. The accident took place in July 1977 and the litigation has come to an end, hopefully, today 15 years thereafter. This Court in Motor Owners Insurance Company Ltd. v. J.K Modi, 1981 Acc CJ 507 : ((1981) 4 SCC 660 : AIR 1981 SC 2059), held that the delay in the final disposal of motor accident classes of litigation, takes asting out of the laws of compensation and added to that the monstrous inflaction and the consequent fall in the value of rupee makes the compensation demanded years ago, less than quarter of its value when it is received after such a long time. In Manju Shri Raha v. B.L Gupta, 1977 Acc CJ 134 : ((1977) 2 SCC 174 : AIR 1977 SC 1158), this Court awarded compensation by multiplying the life expectancy without making any deductions. With the value of rupee dwindling due to high rate of inflaction, there is no justification for making deduction due to lump sum payment. We, therefore, hold that the courts below were not justified in making lump sum deduction in this case.”
13. Therefore, submission of Mr. Sharma for reducing the compensation on account of lump sum payment is not tenable. In this case, litigation is coming to close in 1993. Accident has taken place in 1977. The claim petition was filed in 1978 and the amount of compensation is not paid in full, therefore, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on account of lump sum.
14. Under Section 110 CC of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, under which the present proceedings were initiated in 1978 and under which the award was given on 1-12-1988, the Tribunal had to give simple interest at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim. In this case, Tribunal should have given interest from the date of claim petition to the date of realisation of amount @ 12%. The rate of interest at 12% is held to be reasonable by the Supreme Court in (1992) 2 SCC 567 : (AIR 1992 SC 1261) (supra). Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get 12% interest on the amount of compensation which is payable to the claimants from the date of making of application to the date of realisation of the amount. To this extent cross-objections filed by the claimants are liable to be allowed.
15. In Appeal No. 281/1982, the learned Counsel for the appellant has raised an objection that once the award was issued by the Tribunal, it could not correct the award and judgment under Section 152, C.P.C It is stated that provisions of C.P.C as a whole are not applicable to the Tribunal in determining the compensation. Under Section 110C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Tribunal is free to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit in holding any enquiry.
16. It has all the powers of the Civil Court for a limited purpose i.e for taking evidence on oath, for enforcing the attendance of witnesses, for compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for any other purposes as may be prescribed. There is no provision in the Act which would authorise the Tribunal to review its own orders and correct its judgment.
17. The Tribunal seems to have on an application made by the claimants rectified the mistake which in the opinion of the Tribunal had crept in regard to the calculation of compensation amount. It has observed that after giving a finding that average life expectancy of the deceased was 60 years and he had died at the age of 26 years in an accident, the remainder period of his life is 34 years and not 24 years as held in the judgment dated 1-12-1980. Therefore, it has rectified that mistake and made proper calculation.
18. I have heard the learned Counsel on this aspect of the matter also.
19. In my opinion Tribunal has not exercised any power of review under Section 152 of the C.P.C There was a glaring mistake in the order of the Tribunal which it has rectified. The Tribunal's findings with regard to average life expectancy of the deceased is reproduced in this judgment elsewhere. Based on that finding calculation for compensation was to be made for 34 years i.e the remainder period for which deceased was expected to live. There is a positive finding that deceased could have lived upto 60 years of age. He admittedly died at the age of 26 years, therefore, calculation was to be made by applying multiplier of his income to 34 years of his remainder life. The tribunal has by an inadvertence or mistake made calculation by multiplying his income for 24 years which is an error apparent on the judgment. Such a mistake could be corrected by the tribunal itself and no fault could be found with the finding of the tribunal dated 17-11-1981 when the correction in the calculation was made by the tribunal and the calculation was brought in accord with the findings of the judgment dated 1-12-1980. The tribunal does not become functus officio after it has announced the award. It can correct typographical errors, mathematical errors or errors which have inadvertently crept in the judgment which do not fit in with the context of the judgment give by it. The tribunal is bound to make calculation which must be consisent with its finding. In the present case, the calculation made by the tribunal is inconsisent with the finding of the tribunal and this mathematical error could be corrected by the tribunal. Therefore, Mr. Sharma was not right in contending that by correcting the mathematical error tribunal has over-stepped its jurisdiction.
20. The finding recorded by the tribunal whereby it has corrected the amount of compensation and corrected its mathematical error to make it consistent with the judgment dated 1-12-1980 is not bad in any manner and there is no mistake committed by the tribunal if it has corrected the mathematical error in the compensation awarded by it.
21. There is a cross-objection filed by the claimants in this appeal also. Same need not be considered because cross-objection in appeal No. 268/81 to the extent of grant of interest has been allowed and it has been disallowed in other aspects.
22. For the reasons stated above, these two appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. The cross-objection in appeal No. 268/81 is allowed only to the extent of grant of interest. The interest should be calculated @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 81,600/- from the date of filing of compensation claim before the tribunal. The balance amount along with interest thereon shall be deposited by the appellants before the court below within two months from the date of supplying of a copy of this order to the tribunal failing which claimants are free to execute the decree and judgment of the court below. There will be no order as to costs in the two appeals.
23. Order accordingly.
Comments