Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

F.A.O No. 14 of 1964

Advocates

Manisubrat Jain
Laxmi Grover

Judges

C.G Suri, J.

Acts

SECTION 110 MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
section 304-A, Indian Penal Code.
Fatal Accidents Act, 1885,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Concise Analytical Summary of the Opinion (C.G. Suri, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Shri Bhim Sen Sharma, a school teacher aged about 43 years, was riding a cycle when he was struck and killed by Punjab Roadways Bus No. PNE-8388 at about 3:45 P.M. on 22 January 1962 on the Grand Trunk Road near village Padhana. His widow, Smt. Shanti Devi, filed a claim for compensation under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab awarded the widow Rs. 3,000 as compensation but withheld Rs. 8,520 that was found payable to the deceased's four minor children on the ground that the widow had not joined her children as applicants. The widow appealed the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal's primary factual findings (not seriously challenged on appeal) included that the bus driver was negligent, the deceased was riding on his left side, and that the deceased sustained severe injuries and died the same day. Independent witnesses, including a private medical practitioner and a landlord, described the bus as going at very high speed; the driver lost control and was subsequently challaned and convicted for rash and negligent driving under section 304-A IPC.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was justified in withholding the portion of the compensation attributable to the deceased's minor children because the widow did not formally join them as applicants.
Whether the Tribunal under-assessed the deceased's contribution to dependents (monthly amount available to dependents) and consequently awarded an inadequate sum as compensation.
What life expectancy or method should be used in computing compensation (effect of differing rulings on assumed life expectancy and approach to lump-sum compensation).
Whether the widow, as the de facto guardian, could receive and hold the minors' share of compensation when the minors had not themselves filed claims.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Smt. Shanti Devi)

The income of the deceased and the compensation awarded to the dependents were meagrely assessed by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal wrongly withheld the amount due to the minor children simply because she had not formally joined them as applicants; she had in fact mentioned the existence of four minor children in a prior notice to the General Manager of Punjab Roadways and in her statement before the Tribunal.
The widow contended that she was the natural and de facto guardian of the minors and ought to receive the amounts on their behalf.

Tribunal / Respondent Position (as reflected in the opinion)

The Tribunal found negligence on the part of the bus driver (a finding not seriously challenged on appeal) and awarded a small lump sum to the widow (Rs. 3,000), but it withheld Rs. 8,520 payable to the four minor children on the ground that the widow had not joined the children as applicants in the claim.
The Tribunal assessed the amount available to the dependents from the deceased as Rs. 80 per month and calculated loss of income for a period of 12 years (implying a normal life expectancy of 55 years), producing a relatively low compensation figure.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Mst. Parsini v. Sohan Singh (L.P.A. No. 273 of 1963) (unreported, decided 26 Apr 1967)	Where an application form does not explicitly require naming all dependents, an omission by a widow to mention minor children is venial; the claim should be treated as made on behalf of children as well.	The Court relied on this unreported ruling to hold that the Tribunal's narrow approach was wrong and that the minors' share should not have been withheld for a venial omission by the widow.
Northern India Transporters Insurance Company v. Smt. Amra Wati, 1966–68 P.L.R. 538 (Division Bench)	Claims filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal arising under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1885, are to be taken as made on behalf of heirs (wife, husband, parents, children under section I‑A of that Act).	Used to support the proposition that a claim before the Tribunal should be regarded as inclusive of minors and their share could not be withheld merely because specific formalities were omitted.
Alwar Motor Association (P) Ltd. v. Hazari Lal, 1964 66 P.L.R. 805 (Division Bench)	Similar view that claim before Tribunal is for all dependents and minors' claims should not be defeated by procedural omissions.	Cited as part of the line of authority justifying payment of minors' shares to the widow/guardian where procedural omission occurred.
Jeet Kumari v. Chittagong E & E Supply Co., A.I.R. 1947 Cal. 195	Authority relied upon for the proposition that heirs/dependents are to be safeguarded in fatal accident claims.	This case was relied on in the chain of authorities supporting payment to dependents/minors; the opinion notes it in the genealogy of precedents.
Johnson v. The Madras Railway Co., I.L.R. 28 Mad. 470	Earlier authority relied upon in Jeet Kumari (supportive of the heirs/dependents principle).	Identified as an antecedent authority in the line of cases the Court considered when deciding that minors' shares should be preserved and paid to the widow.
Nani Bala Sen v. Auckland Jute Co. Ltd., A.I.R. 1925 Cal. 893	Cited among authorities concerning distribution and protection of dependents' rights in fatal accident claims.	Part of the historical authorities relied upon to support the Court's approach to minor dependents.
Mrs. E.V. Penhier v. M. Minneys, A.I.R. 1934 Cal. 655	Cited as historical precedent in support of protecting dependents' interests.	Included in the list of decisions reinforcing the Court's conclusion on minors' entitlement.
Pym v. The Great Northern Railway Co., 1863 B. & S. 396	Historical common‑law authority cited among cases on fatal accidents and dependents' claims.	Referenced as part of the jurisprudential background relied upon by the Court on the issue of dependents' rights.
Shiv Parsad Gupta v. S.M. Sabir Zaidi, 1967 A.C.J. 321 (Allahabad Division Bench)	Held that average life expectancy in India for purposes of such calculations should be taken as about 70 years (as cited).	Relied upon to justify treating life expectancy more generously than the Tribunal did and to support a more liberal compensation computation.
Mrs. Savitri Devi v. The Malerkotla Bus Service (P) Ltd., 1969 71 P.L.R. 306	Followed Shiv Parsad Gupta in taking a higher life expectancy for compensation calculations.	Used as support for adopting a more liberal approach to life expectancy and compensation assessment.
Sukhdev Singh v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala, 1969 71 P.L.R. 546	Followed the view of higher life expectancy in computing compensation.	Relied upon to reinforce the approach of using a larger span for calculating loss of dependency.
Gomathi Ammal v. Ramachandran Pillai, 1967 A.C.J. 15	Appears to follow the higher life expectancy approach but concerned a deceased aged about 63.	Mentioned to show the circumstances in which life expectancy assumptions may differ (age of deceased is relevant).
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal v. Smt. Munnabai, 1967 A.C.J. 214	Took average life expectancy as 5 years in that case due to evidence about family longevity.	Illustrates that life expectancy must be determined on the facts of each case; cited to support case-by-case assessment.
Oriental Fire & Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chuni Lal, 1969 A.C.J. 237	Observed that circumstances of each case must be kept in mind in awards and adjustments.	Invoked to emphasize that compensation calculations require consideration of individual case circumstances.
Punjab State v. Smt. Hardeep Kaur, 1969 71 P.L.R. 837	One of a set of rulings relied upon concerning compensation assessment principles.	Cited among authorities the Court considered in forming its approach to the compensation calculation.
Prem Singh v. Tika Ram, 1967 A.C.J. 243	Ruling cited in relation to compensation assessment principles.	Included among the precedents supporting the Court's approach to evaluating future prospects and discounting.
Narain Devi v. Des Raj, 1967 A.C.J. 344	Ruling relied upon concerning compensation assessment.	Part of the cluster of cases the Court reviewed when deciding the appropriate method and quantum of compensation.
Himachal Government Transport, Shimla v. Joginder Singh, 1970 72 P.L.R. 42	Another authority considered on the peculiar facts of compensation calculation.	Relied upon as part of the jurisprudence informing the Court's method of assessment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by addressing two central strands of the dispute: (1) whether the Tribunal was justified in withholding the minors' share because they had not been formally joined; and (2) whether the quantum of compensation was inadequate because of an under‑assessment of the deceased's income and an insufficient life expectancy assumption.

On the first strand, the Court observed:

The Tribunal had taken a narrow technical view and refused to recognize the minors' claim because the widow had answered the application form's column as "wife of the deceased" without listing the minor children. The Court emphasized that the prescribed form did not have a separate column requiring naming all dependents and that such an innocent answer could not be treated as excluding minors.
The widow had, prior to filing the claim, served a notice on the General Manager of Punjab Roadways mentioning that the deceased had left four minor children; she had also mentioned the minors during her statement before the Tribunal. Thus the existence of the minors was brought to the attention of the respondent and the Tribunal.
Relying on a chain of precedent (including an unreported L.P.A. and several reported Division Bench decisions), the Court held that minor children could not be expected to file their own claims and that any procedural delay or omission in pressing their claim should be condoned. Accordingly, it concluded the withholding of the minors' share was unjustified and that the minors' share should be paid to the widow as their de facto guardian.

On the second strand (quantum of compensation), the Court analyzed the deceased's service record and prospects:

The service record showed date of birth as 9 January 1919 and salary particulars (salary Rs. 95 plus dearness allowance Rs. 40 per month). The Tribunal had estimated the deceased's contribution to dependents as Rs. 80 per month; the widow asserted additional irregular earnings from private tuition.
The Court found the evidence of tuition irregular and not fully satisfactory but accepted a reasonable estimate that the deceased made available about Rs. 100 per month to his widow and four children (an upward revision from the Tribunal's Rs. 80).
The Tribunal had earlier used a 12‑year period for loss (implying a life expectancy of 55 years). The Court reviewed more recent authorities suggesting higher average life expectancy figures (around 70 years) and noted that life expectancy may vary on the facts; it emphasized the need to compensate reasonably for the lost income while avoiding a windfall.
Applying a pragmatic lump‑sum approach and illustrative arithmetic, the Court explained that a sum of Rs. 20,000 invested at 6% per annum would yield approximately Rs. 100 per month in interest — roughly equating to the monthly contribution the deceased was found to have made. On that basis, and without further deductions for the lump sum, the Court considered Rs. 20,000 to be a reasonably adequate compensation for the widow and four minor children.
Accordingly, the Court increased the award and apportioned it between the widow (Rs. 8,000) and each of the four minor children (Rs. 3,000 each), explaining that the widow as de facto guardian should receive the minors' shares.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is allowed. The Court set aside the Tribunal's withholding of the minors' share and awarded a total of Rs. 20,000 as compensation, allocated as follows:

Widow (Smt. Shanti Devi): Rs. 8,000
Each of the four minor children: Rs. 3,000 (totaling Rs. 12,000)

No order as to costs.

Implications:

Direct effect: The withheld amount that the Tribunal had refused to pay to the minor children is to be paid to the widow, who is recognized as the de facto guardian entitled to receive the minors' shares.
Broader legal implication as reflected in the opinion: The decision follows and applies an established line of authorities holding that procedural omissions by a widow in claim forms (such as failing to name minor dependents) should not defeat the minors' substantive entitlement; claims filed before the Tribunal are to be treated as made on behalf of heirs and dependents. The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal principle but applies existing precedents and emphasizes a fact‑sensitive, reasonable approach to compensation calculations (including consideration of life expectancy and the use of a lump‑sum approach to approximate lost future income).

Disposition: Appeal allowed. (Order as stated above.)

Show full summary ...

Smt. Shanti Devi And Others v. General Manager Punjab Roadways And Others

C.G Suri, J.:— Shri Bhim Sen Sharma, a School teacher, aged about 43 years, was going on cycle when he was knocked down and killed by Punjab Roadways Bus No. PNE-8388 at about 3.45 P.M on 22nd of January, 1962 on the Grand Trunk Road near village Padhana. His widow Smt. Shanti Devi filed a claim for compensation under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab has awarded her a sum of Rs. 3,000/- only as compensation. A sum of Rs. 8,520/- which was found payable to her four minor children from her wedlock with the deceased, has been withheld from her on the ground that Smt. Shanti Devi had not joined her children as applicants. It may be mentioned here that the eldest of these minors was a girl aged about 10 years. Smt. Shanti Devi naturally feels aggrieved and has come up in appeal. According to her, the income of the deceased and the amount of compensation due to the dependents had been meagrely assessed and the learned Tribunal has added insult to injury by withholding the amount due to the minors. I am inclined to agree with her on both these points.

2. The finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the Punjab Roadways bus has not been seriously challenged before me. The deceased was on a cycle, but he was going on his left side of the road when he was knocked down by the bus. He was removed to the hospital where he died the same day. He had injuries all over his body and 7 ribs had been brooken and the right lung was found to be lacerated. His kidney and stomach were found ruptured. Dr. Hari Ram, a private medical practitioner, and Ram Krishan, a landlord, had witnessed the accident.

3. According to both these witnesses, the bus was going at a very fast speed. The deceased was thrown off from the cycle and fell at a distance of 10/12 feet and the bus driver lost control over the vehicle. The bus fell into kathans and the bus driver Shri Wazir Chand was challaned for rash and negligent driving under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code. He has been convicted and sentenced by the criminal Court though his negligence has been proved independently by evidence examined in this case.

4. It is true that the appellant had not mentioned in her claim application that she had four minor children from her wedlock with the deceased. If on that ground the learned Tribunal was to ignore the existence of the children, then the amount due as compensation for the death of the deceased on account of loss of income to the dependents should have been paid in its entirety to the sole surviving heir and there was hardly any justification for withholding the major portion of that compensation amount. The mother was after all the natural and de facto guardian of the minor children and was charged with the duty of bringing them up. The learned Tribunal took rather a harsh and unrealistic view in making the helpless minors suffer for a small lapse on the part of the widow in distress or that of her legal adviser. It may be mentioned that in a notice served by the widow on the General Manager of the Punjab Roadways before the filing of the present petition, it had been mentioned that the deceased had left four minor children who were dependent on the deceased. This fact had again been mentioned by the widow in her statement made before the learned Tribunal in the course of the proceedings. The erroneous view taken by the learned Tribunal goes against a long string of rullings. In an unreported case Mst. Parsini v. Sohan Singh . L.P.A No. 273 of 1963. (Letter Patent Appeal No. 273 of 1963, decided on the 26th April, 1967, by Mehar Singh, C.J and Harbans Singh, J.) the same question had arisen on almost similar facts. In the claim application filed on the prescribed form, it had not been mentioned that the deceased had left seven minor children besides the widow. The prescribed form has no separate column requiring that the names of all the dependents of the deceased may be mentioned therein. The column in the application with the heading “relationship of the applicant with the deceased” may seem to lay a trap in which the widow had fallen in that case as well as in the case now before me. The answer “wife of the deceased” cannot be equalled in its simplicity and innocence and naturally does not mention that there were minor children also. In that case also, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal denied the minors the share that would have been payable to them out of the compensation amount because of a venial and excusable ommission of their mother. It was observed that the Tribunal had taken rather a narrow view in holding that the application could be treated only as on behalf of the wife and not on behalf of the children. The view taken was that the application had been made by the widow not only for herself but also on behalf of the children as it had been indicated in an earlier application that the deceased had left some minor children and that those minors had been produced in Court. It was further observed that the minor children could not have themselves filed any claim and that the delay, if any, in pressing their claim should be condoned.

5. Besides this unreported case, there are reported rulings taking the same view. The latest is a Division Bench ruling of Dulat and Pandit, JJ. in Northern India Transporters Insurance Company v. Smt. Amra Wati . 1966 68 P.L.R 538. in which it was held that where a claim application was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, arising out of the death in a motor accident of a person, then it has to be remembered that a claim of this kind, which arises out of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1885, is to be taken to have been made on behalf of the heirs like the wife, husband, parents and children mentioned in section I-A of the said Act. In that case, a sum of Rs. 8,000/- out of the total compensation amount of Rs. 18,000/- payable in respect of the accident was allowed by the Tribunal to the widow but a sum of Rs. 10,000/- due to the two minor daughters was withheld on the ground that the application on their behalf was deleted. On appeal the delay was condoned by the High Court and it was held that the claim was essentially on behalf of all the dependents of the deceased. A similar view had been taken by another Division Bench in an earlier decision in Alwar Motor Association (private) Ltd., Alwar v. Hazari Lal . 1964 66 P.L.R 805.. The case of Jeet Kumari v. Chittagong E & E Supply Co. . A.I.R 1947 Cal. 195. was relied upon and this ruling had in turn relied on Johnson v. The Madras Railway Co. . I.L.R 28 Mad. 470. Nani Bala Sen v. Auckland Jute Col. Ltd. . A.I.R 1925 Cal. 893., Mrs. E.V Penhier v. M. Minneys . A.I.R 1934 Cal. 655. and Pym v. The Great Northren Railwy Co. . 1863 B. & S. 396.. The amount due to the minors should therefore be made payable to the widow of the deceased, Smt. Shanti Devi appellant who is the de facto gurdian of the minor children of the deceased.

6. The service record of the deceased has been produced by an official of his department and gives us a fairs idea about his age, monthly income and future prospects. It gives his date of birth as 9th January, 1919 which means that on the date of accident the deceased was about 43 years of age. The learned Tribunal has calculated the loss of income of the dependents for a period of 12 years implying thereby that the normal life expectancy was 55 years. My attention has however been drawn to some recent rulings which take the view that average life expectancy in India should in such cases be taken as 70 years. A Division Bench ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Shiv Parsad Gupta v. S.M Sabir Zaidi . 1967 A.C.J 321. has been cited in this connection. This ruling was followed in two Bench decisions of this Court reported as Mrs. Savitri Devi v. The Malerkotla Bus Service (P) Ltd. . 1969 71 P.L.R 306., and Sukhdev Singh… v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala…. . 1969 71 P.L.R 546.. The same view may appear to have been taken in Gomathi Ammal v. Ramachandran Pillai . 1967 A.C.J 15. but the deceased in that case had already attained the age of 63 years at the time of his death in an accident. In Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal v. Smt. Munnabai . 1967 A.C.J 214., the average life expectancy was taken to be 5 years. There was however evidence in all such cases that the members of the deceased's family were generally long lived. These rulings would justify our calculating the compensation amount a little more liberally. The main idea however should be to reasonably compensate the dependents for the loss of that part of the income which the deceased might have made available to them if he had lived out his normal span of life. The dependents would naturally be inclined to place before us a very optimistic and bright side of the deceaseds' future prospects but the future does not always hold all the good things in life that one way wish or hpe for. The uncertainties of the furture introduce an element of discount in the formula that has to be evolved for working out the compensation amount. Ordinarily, the income would have accrued due to the deceased in small driblets spread out over a long period but the accident has the effect of precipitating all these small amounts suspended over the furture years into a hard lumpsum which if wisely invested could yield a recurring income in the shape of interest at a rate which may very nearly come upto the dependents share of the deceaseds monthly income and still leave the corpus intact as a substantial provision which the deceased may himself have been unable to make for his dependents if he had continued living his normal uneventful life. The Courts should not allow a misfortune to be turned into a windfall. When the lumpsum payment worked out over a certain length of years yields a recurring income which is very near the dependents share in the monthly income of the deceased, a stage is reached where the length of the remaining life span ceases to have any meaning. The lump sum of the corpus can then be taken as adequate compensation for the possible brightening up of the future prospects of the deceased, eliminating at the same time the possibility of the furture taking a turn for the worse for unknown reasons other than the accident. Normal cuts or deductions have also to be made at recognized rates. Circumstances of each case have to be kept in mind as was observed in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. New Delhi v. Chuni Lal . 1969 A.C.J 237. and the rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, namely. Punjab State v. Smt. Hardeep Kaur . 1969 71 P.L.R 837. Prem Singh v. Tika Ram . 1967 A.C.J 243., Narain Devi v. Des Raj . 1967 A.C.J 344., and Himachal Government Transport Simla v. Joginder Singh . 1970 72 P.L.R 42. proceed on their peculiar facts.

7. According to the service record of the deceased, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 95.00 with dearness allowance of Rs. 40.00 per month at the time of his death. There has been however an improvement in the grades of such teachers within a few years of the accident. The widow had also seated that the deceased used to supplement his income by private coaching and tuition but the evidence on the point is not very satisfactory. Tuition is at best an irregular source of income which can be relied upon for only a few months before the promotion tests every year. At a reasonable estimate it can safely be said that the deceased was making available a sum of about Rs. 100/- per month to his widow and four children. The learned Tribunal had assessed this amount at Rs. 80.00 per month. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- as lump sum payment to the widom and four minor children would yield them an income of Rs. 100/- per month if the amount is invested at a reasonable rate of six per cent per annum. The income from the interest could be higher if the amount is kept in fixed deposit for a long term and considering the age of the minors the widow may not have to draw upon the capital for many years to come. If the normal life span is taken as 70-75 years as laid down by the rulings cited above and the compensation amount is calculated over the unexpired portion of the life span, then it may work out to a much higher figure. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- however is being taken as a reasonably adequate compensation for the widow and the four minor children and no further cuts or deduction for the lump sum are being made.

8. For reasons given above, I accept the appeal and allow the widow and the minor children a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. The widow's share is fixed as Rs. 8,000/- while the share of each minor child is fixed at Rs. 3,000/- No order as to costs.

9. Appeal allowed.

Smt. Shanti Devi And Others v. General Manager Punjab Roadways And Others

Concise Analytical Summary of the Opinion (C.G. Suri, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Smt. Shanti Devi)

Tribunal / Respondent Position (as reflected in the opinion)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Smt. Shanti Devi And Others v. General Manager Punjab Roadways And Others

Comments