- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Harish Chandra And Another v. Lucky Bharat Garage And Others
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the parents of the deceased minor Mukesh Kumar Moda, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh's award dated 9.4.1986 in Claim Case No. 5 of 1984. On 3.11.1983, while the 9-year-old Mukesh was standing outside his house to watch Diwali lighting, a truck (registration No. CPS 8764) allegedly driven rashly and negligently by the driver (a respondent) dashed against him and he was crushed to death on the spot.
The claim petition was filed by the appellants (parents) against the owner of the truck, the driver and the insurer. The Tribunal found that the death resulted from rash and negligent driving and held the driver, owner and insurer jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The appellants challenged the adequacy of this amount on appeal.
Prior to the final award, an interim award dated 12.8.1985 had ordered payment of Rs. 15,000 under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 on the no-fault liability principle. The final award under challenge assessed total compensation at Rs. 20,000 (of which Rs. 15,000 had already been paid).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the compensation of Rs. 20,000 awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the 9-year-old child was adequate or should be enhanced.
- Whether statutory provisions introduced as Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (and the analogous Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) providing stipulated minimum compensations (Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 25,000 respectively) should guide Claims Tribunals in assessing compensation on generous scales.
- Whether the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal (6% per annum from date of claim petition) should be increased.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The appellants (parents) contended that the compensation of Rs. 20,000 was inadequate.
- They emphasized that the deceased was a 9-year-old bright school-going child (studying in second standard) and the son of a cloth merchant, as reflected by the Headmistress's evidence. This fact was relied upon to argue for a higher award to reflect likely future assistance and prospects.
Respondents' Arguments
- Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 (owner and insurer) argued that compensation for the death of a child should not be a large sum because of uncertainties regarding life and future prospects of a growing child.
- They relied on earlier decisions: M.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Yasin and C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhi Kuttan Nair, where relatively small sums (e.g., Rs. 5,000) were held adequate in deaths of children, to support the submission that compensation must be based on proof of reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage and not on speculative possibilities.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal v. Yasin, 1974 ACJ 358 (MP) | Cited by respondents for the proposition that in cases of death of children only small sums may be adequate because of uncertainties of future prospects; compensation should reflect reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage. | The court observed that such earlier cases are no longer comparable in view of the development towards no-fault liability and liberal assessment; therefore this authority was not treated as determinative against enhancing compensation in the present case. |
| C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhi Kuttan Nair, 1970 ACJ 110 (SC) | Relied upon by respondents for the same principle as in Yasin — limitation on compensation for children owing to uncertainties of future pecuniary benefit. | The court indicated that jurisprudence had since shifted towards no-fault liability and liberal valuation of life; the earlier principle cited from this case was held not to be comparable for present assessment. |
| Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi, 1980 ACJ 55 (SC) | Articulated the shift toward no-fault liability and urged that quantum must be liberal — "the jurisprudence of compensation for motor accidents must develop in the direction of no fault liability" and awards should be generous to value life and limb. | The court relied upon and quoted this observation to support a broader principle that compensation should be generous and consistent with social justice and human dignity; it informed the decision to enhance the award. |
| Rukmabai v. Ramlal, 1988 ACJ 351 (MP) | Noted that Section 92-A (minimum Rs. 15,000) sets a legislative norm for minimum compensation and tribunals/High Courts must ensure awards are at least that amount; distinction between accidents before or after Section 92-A need not lead to differing treatment. | The court applied the observation to support using statutory minima as a guide; it held the analogous Section 140 (Rs. 25,000) of the new Act should similarly be considered and that the result in the instant case would be Rs. 25,000 with 12% interest. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded from the Tribunal's factual findings that the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving and that the owner, driver and insurer were jointly and severally liable. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 20,000 with interest at 6% p.a., after an interim payment of Rs. 15,000 under Section 92-A (no-fault liability).
The court analyzed competing contentions: appellants stressed the child's youth, scholastic promise and lack of disability to argue for a higher award; respondents relied on older precedents that awarded modest sums in child-death cases because of uncertainties in future earning capacity.
The court observed a jurisprudential shift in motor-accident compensation law towards no-fault liability and an insistence on liberal assessment of quantum, citing Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi for the proposition that compensation jurisprudence "must develop in the direction of no fault liability" and be "liberal, not niggardly." The court emphasized social justice, human dignity and the constitutional context as factors supporting adequate compensation.
Statutory amendments were central to the court's analysis. The court noted that Section 92-A (introduced by amending Act No. 47 of 1982 into the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) fixed Rs. 15,000 as the amount of compensation on the no-fault principle, and the analogous Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 fixed Rs. 25,000. The court held that these provisions establish a basic minimum valuation of human life and should be taken as guidelines by Claims Tribunals when determining compensation on generous scales; awards must not be lower than the statutory no-fault minima.
Applying those principles to the facts of this case, the court found that the deceased, a 9-year-old bright schoolboy with no evidence of physical disability, reasonably gave grounds for the parents to expect future assistance and pecuniary advantage. The Tribunal's award of Rs. 20,000 was therefore regarded as on the lower side and inadequate. The court concluded it was just and proper to enhance compensation to Rs. 25,000.
Regarding interest, the court considered the Tribunal's 6% rate to be low and modified it to 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until realization. The court noted the Rukmabai observation that the legislative norm of Rs. 15,000 under Section 92-A should guide assessment and extended the analogous principle to Section 140 so that, even though the accident occurred before Section 140 came into force, the result would be Rs. 25,000 with 12% interest.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified: the appellants-claimants are entitled to Rs. 25,000 as compensation for the death of the deceased, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization, in place of Rs. 20,000 with interest at 6% as earlier awarded. There shall be no order as to costs.
Implications:
- Direct effect: The respondents (owner, driver and insurer held jointly and severally liable) must pay an enhanced amount of compensation (Rs. 25,000) and a higher rate of interest (12% p.a.) to the appellants from the date of petition until realisation.
- Guidance to tribunals: The opinion directs that statutory minima under Section 92-A (and the analogous Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) should be treated as guidelines and that compensation assessment should be generous and not fall below the statutory no-fault minima.
- No costs order was made against either party.
This summary is based exclusively on the content of the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts or law beyond what the opinion states.
1. This is an appeal by the parents of the deceased minor Mukesh Kumar Moda, under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, in Claim Case No. 5 of 1984 dated 9.4.1986, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000/- in respect of the death of the deceased by a motor accident, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:
On 3.11.1983, the date of the incident, while the minor Mukesh Kumar Moda, aged 9 years, was witnessing the Dipawali lighting, standing in front of his house, at about 8 p.m., the driver, respondent No. 4, who was driving the truck bearing registration No. CPS 8764, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3, insurance company, drove the truck rashly and negligently with the result that the truck dashed against the deceased Mukesh Kumar, who was crushed to death on the spot.
3. On a claim petition having been filed by the appellant parents of the deceased minor Mukesh Kumar against the owner, driver and the insurance company, the learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case found that the deceased Mukesh Kumar died in the motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver, respondent No. 2 and held the driver, owner and the insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation in respect of death of the deceased minor Mukesh Kumar, son of the claimants-appellants and also awarded interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation.
Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount of compensation as awarded, the claimants-appellants have filed this appeal against the award.
4. In this case, Rs. 15,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the claimants by an interim award dated 12.8.1985 on the principle of no fault liability under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the final award, which is under appeal, the learned Tribunal has determined the total compensation payable in respect of the death of the victim Mukesh Kumar as Rs. 20,000 out of which Rs. 15,000/- had already been paid under the interim award.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the deceased Mukesh Kumar, aged 9 years, was son of a cloth merchant and was a school-going boy studying in second standard and was a bright student as is stated in the evidence of the Headmistress of the school, Manjula Sharma, AW 2.
6. It has been submitted that the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal, in respect of the death of the deceased son of the claimants is quite inadequate in the circumstances of the case.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, namely, the owner of the offending truck and the insurance company has submitted that in respect of the death by motor accident of the deceased child the amount of compensation payable cannot be a large sum because of the uncertainties of life and prospects of career, necessarily involved in the case of a growing child. Learned counsel cited a decision of this court in M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal v. Yasin 1974 ACJ 358 (MP) and a decision of the Supreme Court in C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhi Kuttan Nair 1970 ACJ 110 (SC), in support of his submission that in respect of death of a child aged 12 years or 8 years a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was an adequate compensation since the principle for assessment of compensation is that the claimants must prove that they have lost a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage by the death of the deceased and not a mere speculative possibility of pecuniary benefit.
8. Jurisprudence of compensation for motor accident has since developed in the direction of no fault liability and the need for compensation on generous scales for loss of human life and as such the aforesaid cases cited by the learned counsel are no more comparable cases for determining compensation in the instant case.
9. In the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), cited by the learned counsel, it was observed thus:
Social justice, the command of the Constitution, is being violated by the State itself by neglecting road repairs, ignoring deadly overloads and contesting liability after nationalising the bulk of bus transport and the whole of general insurance business. The jurisprudence of compensation for motor accidents must develop in the direction of no fault liability and the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly, since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.
10. Human life is valuable and social justice in a democracy requires adequate social security for the person moving on a public road. If the life of an individual is terminated prematurely on account of a motor accident the amount of compensation awardable in respect of death of the victim of the accident should be a reasonable sum on generous scales, having regard to the concept of human dignity in a democracy and the preamble of our Constitution which seeks to assure the dignity of the individual.
11. The enactment of Section 92-A by amending Act No. 47 of 1982 in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, providing for the amount of compensation in respect of death of a person by motor accident as Rs. 15,000/-on the principle of no fault liability and thereafter the provision of analogous Section 140 in the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, providing for the amount of compensation in respect of death of any person as Rs. 25,000 instead of Rs. 15,000/- ensures the basic minimum valuation of human life, even if no pecuniary advantage could have been expected by the survivors of the deceased had he been alive. The consideration of pecuniary advantage receivable from the deceased for the death by accident is relevant only if such pecuniary advantage could give rise to a claim based on fault liability, exceeding the amount of no fault liability.
12. The provision of minimum compensation of Rs. 15,000/- in Section 92-A introduced by amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by amending Act No. 47 of 1982 and the provision of minimum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in the analogous Section 140 of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, must be taken as guidelines by the Claims Tribunals for determining compensation on generous scales with the restriction that the amount of compensation shall not be lower than the said statutory amount of liability provided on no fault liability principle.
13. The provisions of Section 92-A of the Act of 1939 and the analogous Section 140 of the new Act provide for the basic minimum compensation for loss of human life even where the deceased happens to be a disabled child or a decrepit old person who may have been in pecuniary terms only a liability on the family. As such, it would be reasonable to assess compensation amount higher than the basic minimum in case of a child, who, on account of physical and mental ability, holds promise of assistance to the parents in their later life.
14. In the instant case, the deceased Mukesh Kumar Moda, aged 9 years, was a bright school-going boy as per evidence of the Headmistress of the school. There is no evidence of any physical disability in the boy and, therefore, it could be reasonably expected by the claimants-parents that he would have been of valuable assistance to them in their later life. The learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation in respect of death as Rs. 20,000/-. To my mind, the amount assessed appears to be on the lower side and cannot be said to be adequate compensation. I, therefore, think it just and proper to enhance the amount of compensation awarded to Rs. 25,000/- for a fair and just compensation payable to the appellants-claimants by the respondents. The rate of interest of 6 per cent as awarded by the learned Tribunal is quite low and the same deserves to be modified as 12 per cent. Thus, the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 has cited a decision of this court in Rukmabai v. Ramlal 1988 ACJ 351 (MP), which was a case of motor accident which took place on 14.7.1979 before coming into force of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, wherein it has been observed thus:
In my opinion, it is not necessary to decide the question whether or not Section 92-A is retrospective in its operation. There is, however, an important aspect which must be noticed in the provision of section 92-a. By providing a minimum compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the loss of life resulting from a motor accident, the legislative norm for minimum compensation for loss of life has been set forth and while awarding just compensation for the death resulting from a motor accident, the Tribunal, or the High Court in appeal, cannot lose sight of the fact that assessment of compensation on merits, which is largely based on guesswork, must be in accord with the principle that compensation for loss of life has to be at least Rs. 15,000/-. While accepting the principle that compensation in respect of the death resulting from a motor accident must be at least Rs. 15,000/-, it would not be reasonable to make a distinction in determining compensation in respect of the death by motor accident whether occurring before or after coming into force of Section 92-A.
16. The above observation is also applicable with reference to Section 140 of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in respect of the motor accident in the instant case, which took place on 3.11.1983, i.e., prior to coming into force of section 140 of the new act. In this view of the matter also, the amount of compensation would have been Rs. 25,000/-with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
17. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified inasmuch as the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation in respect of death of the deceased with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation instead of Rs. 20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Alert