Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Dr. B.D Gupta And Another v. Smt. R. Rani Manoranjitham And Others

Punjab & Haryana High Court

Dec 12, 2000

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellants are the parents of Dr. Vikrant Gupta (age 23), who died instantaneously in a lorry accident on the night of April 21-22, 1995. Vikrant had just graduated in Medicine and Surgery and was undergoing internship at the time. He was travelling in Lorry No. TCG-2400 which allegedly hit a stationary truck (No. PY-01-0477) parked on the wrong side of the road without lights or indications. A post-mortem was held and an FIR was recorded.

The appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 2,70,000/-. Dissatisfied with that amount, the appellants appealed aggrieved by the perceived inadequacy of the award.

Procedurally, the petition impleaded the owners, drivers and insurers (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and United India Insurance Company). The two insurers appeared; other parties did not and were proceeded against ex parte. The Tribunal framed issues on negligence, quantum and source of liability, and relief. On issue of negligence the Tribunal found rash and negligent driving by respondent Nos. 2 and 4. On quantum, the Tribunal fixed monthly contribution at Rs. 2,000 (after deductions), applied a multiplier of 10 and awarded Rs. 2,40,000 for loss of dependency plus Rs. 20,000 for transportation and Rs. 10,000 for cremation, totaling Rs. 2,70,000.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent Nos. 2 and 4? (This was the first issue framed by the Tribunal and answered in the affirmative by the Tribunal.)
To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled and from whom? (Quantum and source of liability — second issue framed by the Tribunal.)
Relief (third issue framed by the Tribunal).
On appeal: Whether the Tribunal awarded a just and fair compensation to the claimants (the short question before the appellate court).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

The appellants claimed that the deceased had a high potential earning capacity (they asserted a minimum potential earning of Rs. 50,000 per month) and sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000 along with 18% interest.
Counsel for the appellants (Mr. Ashok Sharma) argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal (Rs. 2,70,000) was grossly inadequate and that a much higher amount should have been awarded.

Respondents' / Insurers' Arguments

In written pleadings the Oriental Insurance Company averred that no cause of action had accrued, contending that the first respondent was not the owner at the time, had no insurable interest, and that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence; they otherwise put the claimants to proof.
The United India Insurance Company filed similar defenses.
On appeal, counsel for the insurers (respondent Nos. 5 and 6) contended (albeit described as half-heartedly) that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal was adequate.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court reviewed the facts, the Tribunal's findings and the evidence presented on the deceased's academic attainments, potential and likely earnings. The court's analysis proceeded as follows:

Evaluation of evidence on promise and potential:
- The court noted the deceased's excellent academic record: selection to the MBBS course through all-India competition, passing all examinations in the first attempt and doing internship (certificate Ex.P1).
- The Dean of the Institute provided an opinion stating that had the deceased survived, there was a strong probability he could have gained admission to higher courses (M.D./M.S.) and earned a good income as a specialist. The court treated this as clear testimony of the deceased's potential.
- The father's testimony (PW1) confirming ambitious plans and prospects was accepted and not materially impeached in cross-examination.
Assessment of appropriate monthly income and deduction for personal expenses:
- The Tribunal had postulated a post-internship salary of Rs. 3,000 and, after deducting one-third for personal expenses, arrived at a contribution of Rs. 2,000 per month. The appellate court found this figure inadequate given contemporaneous levels of pay for junior residents and state medical services.
- The appellate court considered that junior residents in 1995-96 were paid around Rs. 12,000 per month (or more) in postgraduate institutes and that state medical services paid even more; thus, Rs. 12,000 per month was a fair conservative figure for the deceased's likely monthly income.
- Applying the customary deduction of one-third for personal expenses, the court reasoned that the deceased could have contributed Rs. 8,000 per month to his parents (i.e., Rs. 12,000 minus one-third).
Choice of multiplier:
- The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 10 on the hypothesis that the deceased might marry after 10 years; the appellants sought a multiplier of 18.
- The appellate court applied established balancing considerations: while damages should be minimized and realistic, life expectancy and the parents' ages (about 60 and less than 58) plus the likely continued care the deceased would provide warranted a higher multiplier than 10 but not as high as 18.
- The court selected a multiplier of 12, explaining that even if the deceased married, he would likely continue to provide comfort and support to his parents; taking all factors into account, multiplier 12 was appropriate.
Calculation of total compensation:
- Monthly contribution accepted by the court: Rs. 8,000. Annual loss = Rs. 8,000 x 12 = Rs. 96,000.
- Applying multiplier 12: Rs. 96,000 x 12 = Rs. 11,52,000.
- On expenses for transportation and funeral, PW1 (the father) stated he spent Rs. 80,000 on transportation and Rs. 40,000 on funeral and cremation; those figures were not challenged. The court, however, adjusted and awarded a combined amount of Rs. 45,000 as just and reasonable for these heads.
- Thus the court arrived at a total compensation figure of Rs. 11,52,000 + Rs. 45,000 = Rs. 11,97,000.
Interest, liability and costs:
- The court awarded interest at 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition, as awarded by the Tribunal.
- Because the Tribunal had held both vehicles equally liable and that finding was not challenged on appeal, the appellate court confirmed that the liability of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (the insurers) would be joint and several.
- The appellants were awarded their costs.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED.

Holding (core ruling): The appellate court allowed the appeal and substituted the Tribunal's award with a compensation of Rs. 11,97,000 (Rupees eleven lakh ninety-seven thousand), along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition (as previously awarded by the Tribunal). The liability of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (the insurers) was declared joint and several. The appellants were entitled to costs.

Implications: The direct consequence is that the appellants recover Rs. 11,97,000 plus interest and costs, replacing the Tribunal's earlier award of Rs. 2,70,000. The opinion does not discuss broader legal principles beyond the application of standard heads of compensation (loss of dependency, funeral/transportation expenses), multiplier selection and accepted methods for estimating future earnings; it therefore does not purport to set any novel precedent. This decision adjusts the quantum of compensation on the facts and evidence before the court.

This summary is confined to information explicitly contained in the provided opinion.

Show all summary ...

1. The appellants are the unfortunate parents who suffered an irreparable loss in the death of their young son - Dr. Vikrant Gupta. He was 23 years old and had just Graduated in Medicine and Surgery. He was undergoing internship. He met his end in a lorry accident. The death was instantaneous. The appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal has assessed and awarded a total amount of Rs. 2,70,000/-. The appellants complain that the compensation is too meagre. Hence this appeal.

The facts may be briefly noticed.

2. On the night intervening April 21-22,1995, Vikrant Gupta was travelling to Pondicherry in Lorry No. TCG-2400. Neary Chengalpattu, the Lorry hit a stationary Truck No. PY-01-0477 which was parked on the wrong side of the road without any light or indication. Vikrant Gupta sustained multiple injuries and died. His post-mortem was performed at the Medical College. Chcngalpattu. An FIR Ex.P.5 was also recorded.

3. The father of the deceased was at Chandigarh. He had retired as Professor and Head of the Department of Radiotherapy, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, in the year 1994. On April 22, 1995, he was to leave for Mangolia. His ticket was already booked. However, on receipt of the telegram, he had flown to Madras and then reached Chengalpattu. He got the body embalmed. It was carried to Delhi by air and then to Chandigarh in an ambulance. The last rites were performed at Chandigarh.

4. The deceased had a brilliant academic record. He had jointed the MBBS course at the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry in July 1990. This admission was granted to him as a result of the selection conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. He had completed the four and a half years' course and was doing internship from January 1995. During the period of internship, he was being paid a monthly stipend of Rs. 2000/-. The accident ended a promising career.

5. The deceased had other interests as well. He had passed the Grade-V examination in Classical Guitar from the London School of Music. He had ambitious plans of performing concerts apart from following the medical profession.

6. The appellants claim that the deceased had the potential of earning a minimum of Rs. 50,000/- per month. On this basis, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs alongwith 18% interest was claimed.

7. In the petition, the owners and drivers of the two vehicles and the insurers viz. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and the United India Insurance Company were impleaded as parties. The two companies appeared. Others did not Resultantly, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 were proceeded against ex parte.

8. In the written statement filed by the Oriental Insurance Company, it was averred that no cause of action had accrued. The first respondent was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident. She had no insurable interest and that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. On merits, the basic plea was that the claimants be put to proof. Similar was the reply filed on behalf of the United India Insurance Company - respondent No. 6.

9. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following three issues :-

(i) Whether the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 ? OPP.

2. It issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to and from whom ? OPP,

3. Relief.

On issue No. 1, the Tribunal found that the accident had occurred "due to rash and negligent acts of respondent Nos. 2 and 4". On the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took the view that after completion of the internship, the salary of the deceased could be Rs. 3000/-. 1/3rd was deducted on account of personal expenses. Thus, taking the contribution at Rs. 2000/- per month, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 10 and assessed the compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/-. It allowed another amount of Rs. 20,000/- on account of transportation changes and Rs. 10,000/- for cremation. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 2,70,000/- was assessed and awarded.

10. Mr. Ashok Sharma, counsel for the appellants contends that the compensation as assessed by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and that a much higher compensation ought to have been awarded. On the other hand, M/s Suveer Dewan and Gopal Mittal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 - the insurers, have (though half-heartedly) contended that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is adequate.

11. The short question that arises for consideration is -1 las the Tribunal awarded a just and fair compensation to the claimants ?

12. Admittedly, the deceased had passed his MBBS examination. The certificate Ex.Pl clearly shows that he was doing his internship. It is also evident that he was "a very good student and (had) passed all the examination in the first appearance itself. Even his past was good. He had got admission to the Jawaharlaf institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry, as a result of the All India competition conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. Still, further, he had also qualified the Grade V examination from the London School of Music.

13. Dr. B.D. Gupta - the father of the deceased appeared as PW1. He stated that his son had "ambitious plans of performing concerts apart from devoting his time in the medical profession ..." He also stated that the deceased was to "further pursue hisMD/MS course and was to rise high in life..." In cross-examination, the only suggestion made to the witness was that his son was not MBBS. Otherwise, nothing was suggested which may reflect adversely on the deceased.

14. It is evident that the deceased had a consistently good academic record. His selection and admission to a medical course is symbolic of his good academic attainments. Even if the testimony of the Dad is deemed to be tainted with some degree of interest (though there is nothing to suggest that), we have the unequivocal opinion of the Dean of the Institute. He has given apic-

ture of the promise and the potential. The certificate is Ex.Pl. It shows that the deceased had not only passed all the examinations in the first attempt but also that

"if he were to survive, there was every probability that he could have secured admission for higher courses of study (like M.D., M.S., etc.) and qualified to have a good....income as a specialist medical practitioner."

This assessment by the Dean of the Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry bears clear testimony to the potential of the deceased. Apparently, he had a good past and was likely to have a bright future. He had the potential of being a source of comfort to his parents and an asset to the society.

15. It is true that in April 1995, the deceased was undergoing internship. He was getting a stipend of Rs. 2000/-. However, on graduation, he could have easily hoped to get a good Government job or to set up private practice. He could have also done post-graduation. In any of these situations, his income would not have been restricted to Rs. 3000/- per mensem as assessed by the Tribunal. In fact, it is the admitted position that even in the year 1995-96, Junior Residents who joined Post Graduate Institutes of Medical Education for higher studies were paid in the region of Rs. 120007- per month or more. Those \vlio were selected for appointment to the State Medical Services, were paid even more. There were prospects of career advancement. Or. this basis, it appears that it would be unfair to fix the monthly income of the deceased at anything less than Rs. 12000/- per month. It could have been even more if he were to take up a job with the Government or to set up private practice. If 1/3rd of this amount is excluded as the personal expenses of the deceased, he could have easily spared Rs. 8000/- per month for his parents.

16. The Tribunal has noticed the fact that the deceased was 23 years old at the time of accident. Still, it has applied a multiplier of 10 on the hypothesis that the deceased could have got married after 10 years. Mr. Ashok Sharma contends that the Tribunal has erred in applying a multiplier of 10. He submits that a multiplier of 18 should be applied.

17. The cardinal principle that courts follow is that the damages have to be minimised. Yet, we cannot lose sight of the ground realities. It is indisputal le that life expectancy is increasing with years. Still further, even if the deceased had got married, he would have in the normal course of events continued to look after his parents had provided for them. At the lowest, he would have also been a source of help and solace to them. It is also the admitted position that at the time of the accident, the age of the appellant No. 1 was about 60 years while that of appellant No. 2 was less than 58 years. There is not even a suggestion that the appellants are not fit and healthy. Taking all these factors into consideration, we think it appropriate to apply a multiplier of 12.

18. In view of the above, it is held that the appellants suffered a monetary loss of Rs. 96,000/- per year. With a multiplier of 12. the figure comes to Rs. 11,52,000/-. Still further, the first appellant in his statement as PW1 has categorically asserted that he had spent an amount of Rs. 80,000/- in transportation and Rs. 40,000/- on funeral and cremation etc. This part of the statement was not challenged in cross-examination. Normally, even this amount would have been payable to the appellants. However, we think mat a total compensation of Rs. 45,000/- on this account shall be just and reasonable.

19. No other point has been raised.

20. Whatever the amount of compensation that we might'assess and award, the loss that the appellants have suffered is irreparable. Nothing but time; can heal the wound. The sear (scar ?) shall remain till the last day of their lives. So far as this appeal is concerned, it is allowed in the above terms. The appellants are held entitled to an amount of Rs. 11,97,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing the claim petition as awarded by the Tribunal. Since both the vehicles have been held to be equally liable by the Tribunal and that finding has not been challenged, the liability of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 would be joint and several. The appellants shall be entitled to their costs.

21. Appeal allowed.