Dayali Bai And Others v. State Of Rajasthan And Another

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.N Bhargava, J.:— These two appeals are directed against the award dated 12.9.1988, passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, awarding a sum of Rs. 77,000/- as compensation payable to the claimants by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (in appeal No. 333 of 1988) jointly and severally together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its payment. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. As per the facts mentioned in S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 333 of 1988, Daulat Ram, aged 24 years, was going home after his duties in the Secretariat and he was dashed by jeep No. RSL 5609 belonging to the Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Kalyan Singh, driver. The claimants are mother of the deceased, wife of the deceased and daughter of the deceased who preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (in short ‘the Tribunal’). Reply to the claim petition was filed and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal:

XXXXXXXXX

3. The Tribunal held that on 15.2.1971, accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of jeep No. RSL 5609 by its driver Kalyan Singh and awarded only a sum of Rs. 77,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its payment, jointly and severally, against the State of Rajasthan and the driver of the vehicle, Kalyan Singh. The claimants feeling themselves aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded have preferred S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 333 of 1988 and the State of Rajasthan has also preferred S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 339 of 1988. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The State of Rajasthan in its appeal has challenged the award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that it has not been proved that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver but it was a fault of the deceased himself. It has further been submitted that the amount of compensation awarded is on the higher side and no interest should have been awarded.

4. I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the parties. The claimants had examined Meenu, the widow of the deceased, as PW 1 and Bulaki Das as PW 2 and also have produced certain documents like the post-mortem report, Exh. P-1, F.I.R, Exh. P-2, charge-sheet against the driver, Exh. P-3 and the sketch plan, Exh. P-4, age certificate of the deceased, Exh. P-5 and his pay certificate, Exh. P-6. PW 2, Bulaki Das, was an eye-witness and he was on the same scooter sitting on pillion along with the deceased Daulat Ram when the accident occurred. He was also injured when jeep No. RSL 5609 came with very fast speed and hit the scooter from behind and it was on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver who was also drunk that the accident occurred. Therefore, the Tribunal has also discussed the evidence in detail. I do not find any ground or reason to interfere in the same and hence, I hereby confirm the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1.

5. Issue No. 2 is as to whether the driver was in service of the State Government. No evidence was led by the parties and, therefore, it was rightly decided that the driver was in service of the State Government and, therefore, the State Government is liable for payment of compensation.

6. Now coming to the quantum of compensation. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was aged only 24 years at the time of accident and he was working as a clerk in the State Government and was drawing Rs. 247.50 as pay. Claimant Dayali Bai is mother of the deceased who was 70 years of age at the time of accident. Meenu is widow of the deceased and claimant Lalita is his daughter who was 2 years of age at the time of the accident. Tribunal has found that the deceased must be spending a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per year on the claimants and has applied multiple of 34 for awarding Rs. 68,000/- as compensation. Rs. 5,000/- have been awarded on account of shock and mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- for the loss of love and affection of mother and Rs. 2,000/- to the daughter. Thus, a total of Rs. 77,000/- was awarded along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent.

7. Learned counsel for the claimants has pressed before me that his claim petition should be treated as if the claimants had claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- instead of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In this connection, he has brought to my notice the following authorities:

(i) Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters' Insurance Co., 1971 ACJ 206 (SC), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court had held that the Tribunal is required to fix such compensation which appears to it to be just. Powers given to the Tribunal are quite wide.

(ii) Jai Singh v. N.A Subramaniam, 1983 ACJ 1 (P&H), wherein a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in order to do justice, a Tribunal has inherent powers to apply all or any provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience including an amendment of the petition.

(iii) Kela Devi v. Ram Chand, 1986 ACJ 818 (Delhi), wherein compensation amounting to Rs. 1,51,144/- was awarded, though the claimant had claimed only Rs. 50,000/- as compensation in the claim petition.

(iv) Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Kisan Gangaram Hire, 1987 ACJ 311 (Bombay), wherein a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the Tribunal has power to award compensation in excess of that claimed in the claim petition.

8. Learned counsel for the claimants has further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in taking the multiple of 34 when the age of the deceased was only 24 years and the life of the deceased has been taken to be 58 years which is very much on the lower side. Learned counsel for the claimants has further submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is only 9 per cent which is very low and should have been awarded at least 12 per cent interest. Reliance has been placed on Narcinva V. Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins, 1985 ACJ 397 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the accident till payment. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, 1985 ACJ 645 (SC), wherein again the Supreme Court awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

9. Reliance has then been placed on Jagbir Singh v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways, 1987 ACJ 15 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court enhanced the rate of interest from 6 per cent to 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment, relying on its earlier two decisions quoted above.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants has further submitted that compensation towards the loss of consortium, love and affection to the widow, mother and the daughter and for mental shock and agony to the wife of the deceased has been awarded on a very lower side and has placed reliance on R.S.R.T.C v. Kistoori Devi, 1986 ACJ 960 (Rajasthan), wherein a Full Bench of this court has discussed at length the principles on which compensation should be awarded under the head of loss of love and affection of spouse, children and parents, loss of future happy life of deceased and mental shock.

11. Reliance has also been placed on a Division Bench decision of this court in R.S.R.T.C v. Manorma, 1989 WLN (UC) 467, wherein the court awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for loss of love and affection in addition to 12 per cent interest from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation.

12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have also gone through the record of the case and the authorities cited at the Bar.

13. I have already held that the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 seems to be justified and needs no interference. It is held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver Kalyan Singh who was in service of the State Government and, therefore, the State Government is liable to pay compensation. Now coming to the quantum of compensation. It is true that there is no prohibition under the Motor Vehicles Act that the Tribunal cannot award compensation in excess of the amount claimed in the claim petition. The Tribunal has wide powers in the facts and circumstances of each case to award just and proper compensation looking to the facts of a particular case. The authorities relied by the learned counsel for the claimants on this point also support this view. As regards the compensation awarded to the claimants on account of the life that the deceased would have spent with the claimants, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- per year and has taken the multiple of 34. The deceased was in Government service and would have retired at the age of 58 years and, therefore, it appears that the Tribunal has taken the multiple of 34. Roughly, the income of the deceased was to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per year and out of that he must be spending Rs. 2,000/- on the claimants. It is true that the deceased was in Government service and was getting only Rs. 247.50 per month in 1971 at the time of his death but as we know the salaries have been revised and an L.D.C now is getting approximately Rs. 1,900/- per month. The deceased would have got pension after 58 years on his superannuation. The average age of an Indian which is generally taken into consideration is 70 years. Taking the age as 70 years, the multiple of 46 should have been taken instead of 34, specially keeping in mind the age of the mother of the deceased who has already crossed more than 85 years. Even if we do not take into consideration the revision of pay scales, etc., the compensation on this count should have been at least Rs. 2,000/- × 46 = Rs. 92,000/- (Rs. Ninety-two thousand only). As regards consortium for mental agony, loss of love and affection for the mother and daughter and the wife of the deceased, it has been awarded on a lower side. As the mother of the deceased was still alive, who is aged about 85 years, the Tribunal should have awarded Rs. 10,000/- on this score, so also his daughter who was only two years of age at the time of accident and did not have any chance to have love and affection of her father and who was deprived of all this at a very young age, should have also been awarded at least Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) whereas the wife of the deceased, who was also very young in 1971, must have suffered a great shock in her life, should have been awarded at least Rs. 20,000/- on this count. As regards interest, the Supreme Court has consistently awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent and, therefore, interest should be awarded to the claimants at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.

14. Thus, the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 92,000/- (Rs. Ninety-two thousand only) on account of death of the deceased; Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) towards consortium for mental agony, loss of love and affection for the mother, daughter and wife as also an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) towards loss of love and affection to the daughter. The wife, of the deceased is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) on account of deprivation of married life. The claimants will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation. In the result, S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 333 of 1988 is allowed in part as indicated above whereas S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 339 of 1988 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

15. Appeal partly allowed.