- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S. Nookaratnam v. United India Fire And General Insurance Company
Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This is an appeal from an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Secundrabad dated 31-3-1980 in O.P. No. 297 of 1978 which had awarded Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 6% per annum as compensation.
On 5-9-1977 (time given as about 7:30 A.M.) the deceased, Surya Rao, was travelling by bus (registration APZ 6789) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) to his workplace at B.H.E.L., Ramachandrapuram. The bus collided with a lorry coming in the opposite direction belonging to the 2nd respondent. Surya Rao sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot.
The petition before the Tribunal was filed by the deceased's father P. Suryanarayana, five sisters and one brother claiming Rs. 2,10,000/- as compensation on the ground that Surya Rao was the sole bread-winner. The first respondent was the insurance company which had insured the lorry, the second respondent was the lorry owner (who remained ex parte), and the third respondent was APSRTC, owner of the bus.
The Tribunal found that both the bus and the lorry were travelling at more than ordinary speed and were equally negligent, and awarded Rs. 10,000/-, to be paid in two equal halves: Rs. 5,000/- by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, and Rs. 5,000/- by the 3rd respondent. Interest was directed at 6% per annum from the date of the petition.
There were appeals: C.M.A. No. 501 of 1980 (preferred by the insurance company) and C.M.A. No. 748 of 1980 (preferred by the claimants). The appeals were not clubbed. C.M.A. No. 501/1980 was earlier allowed by this Court, which held there was no negligence on the part of the lorry driver and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver; the result was that RTC alone became liable for compensation (whatever the quantum).
During the pendency of proceedings the father (P. Suryanarayana) died. The remaining petitioners (the sisters and the brother) were brought on record as legal representatives.
Note: The opinion contains inconsistent statements about the deceased's age and monthly salary: paragraph 2 records Surya Rao as "aged about 28 years" and earning "about Rs. 1050-50 ps. per month", while paragraph 6 describes him as "aged only 21 years" and earning "Rs. 1000/- a month". The summary preserves these statements as they appear in the opinion.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petition for compensation abated when the father of the deceased (who was a petitioner and a legal representative) died during the pendency of the claim.
- What is the meaning and scope of the term "legal representative" under the Motor Vehicles Act (Sections 110 to 110-F), and whether it is confined to the classes mentioned in Section (1A) of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.
- Whether the amount of compensation awarded (Rs. 10,000/-) was reasonable and adequate in the facts of this case, and, if not, what appropriate quantum should be awarded.
Arguments of the Parties
Claimants' Arguments (Appellants)
- The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal (Rs. 10,000/-) is wholly inadequate.
- The deceased was the sole bread-winner, young (the opinion records "only 21 years" in one paragraph), earning approximately Rs. 1000/- per month, and his death caused a significant loss to the family; therefore the claimed amount should have been awarded.
Third Respondent (A.P.S.R.T.C.) — Cross-Objections
- Contended that since the father of the deceased died during the pendency of the claim, the petition had abated.
- Maintained that, having regard to the circumstances, the amount awarded by the Tribunal was not inadequate or unreasonable.
First Respondent (Insurance Company) — Earlier Position (from record)
- Filed a counter that they were not liable to pay compensation and, in any event, their liability was limited to Rs. 50,000/- (as per insurance limit asserted in the counter).
- The insurance company's appeal (C.M.A. No. 501/1980) was earlier allowed by this Court, which found no negligence on the part of the lorry driver and held RTC solely liable for the accident.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mohd. Habibullah v. Seethammal, A.I.R. 1967 Madras 123 | Holds that a married sister of the deceased can bring an action for compensation as a "legal representative". | The Court cited this decision to support the proposition that "legal representative" has a wide meaning and may include persons other than those named in the Fatal Accidents Act. |
| Vanguard Insurance Co. v. Hanumantha Rao, 1975 (1) An. W.R. Page 327 | Held that where the mother (who had claimed) died during the proceedings and the brother came on record, the brother could represent the estate and maintain the action; the person representing the estate need not be an heir. | The Court relied on this decision to reject the contention that a brother cannot represent the estate after the death of a parent who had earlier claimed; it supported the view that representation of the estate suffices for maintainability. |
| Perianal v. Etlusamy Reddiar, 1974 (1) M.L.J. Page 292 | Establishes that anyone who represents the estate of the deceased is entitled to claim compensation; the representative need not be a named heir, and brothers/sisters can claim in the absence of parents. | The Court cited this authority as part of the line of decisions demonstrating the broad scope of "legal representative" and to reinforce that claimants representing the estate are entitled to compensation. |
| Megjibhai v. Chaturbhai, A.I.R. 1977 Gujarat 195 | Held that nephews of the deceased could maintain a claim and that claimants not named in Section (1A) of the Fatal Accidents Act may still be maintainable as representatives of the estate. | The Court used this decision to further support the conclusion that the Fatal Accidents Act's list is not exhaustive of who may be a legal representative for claims under the Motor Vehicles Act. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court undertook a twofold analysis: first on the question of survivability/maintainability of the petition after the death of the father, and second on the adequacy of the compensation awarded.
1) Statutory framework and interplay of statutes:
- The Court observed that the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and subsequent statutes such as the Motor Vehicles Act must be read harmoniously. The Motor Vehicles Act (Sections 110 to 110-F) provides the scheme and machinery for adjudication of claims arising from motor accidents and (under Section 110-F) ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts for such claims.
- Where there is any conflict, the special provisions (i.e., the Motor Vehicles Act provisions relating to motor accident claims) would prevail, but the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act are not to be treated as excluding the Motor Vehicles Act.
2) Meaning of "legal representative":
- The Motor Vehicles Act does not define "legal representative". The Court examined precedent and held that the expression has been interpreted broadly by several decisions to include all representatives of the deceased's estate, not only the specific classes mentioned in Section (1A) of the Fatal Accidents Act.
- The Court cited authorities (Mohd. Habibullah; Vanguard Insurance Co.; Perianal; Megjibhai) to demonstrate that persons such as brothers, sisters, nephews, or others representing the estate can maintain claims and recover losses to the estate even if they are not enumerated in the Fatal Accidents Act.
- Applying that principle, the Court concluded that the petition did not abate on the death of the father because the remaining petitioners (sisters and brother) represented the estate and were brought on record as legal representatives.
3) Quantum of compensation:
- The Court noted that compensation under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act is wider than under the Fatal Accidents Act and that awards should be guided by the principle of just compensation. No rigid mathematical formula is mandated; courts must consider facts peculiar to each family and may make reasonable (not speculative) conjectures.
- Applying facts as found/recorded in the case: the deceased was the sole earning member, left behind father (who subsequently died during proceedings), five sisters and one brother (only one sister married), and was employed as a Testing Engineer drawing a monthly salary (the opinion refers to both Rs. 1050-50 ps and Rs. 1000/- in different paragraphs). The Court adopted the approach of assuming Rs. 1000/- monthly income and that Rs. 500/- would on average have been available for family maintenance.
- The Court fixed the period of dependence at an average of six years. Multiplying Rs. 500/- per month for six years yields Rs. 36,000/-, and the Court rounded this to a just compensation of Rs. 40,000/-. The Tribunal's award of Rs. 10,000/- was held to be wholly inadequate and unrelated to the circumstances of the case.
4) Result of earlier appellate development affecting liability:
- The Court took into account that in the earlier appeal by the insurance company (C.M.A. No. 501/1980) this Court had held that the lorry driver was not negligent and that the bus driver's rash and negligent driving caused the accident, which meant that ultimately RTC (the 3rd respondent) alone was liable for payment (irrespective of quantum).
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal by the claimants is allowed with costs. The judgment of the lower Tribunal is modified. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- is awarded as compensation (in place of the Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal), to be paid by the 3rd respondent (A.P. State Road Transport Corporation). The award amount shall be apportioned equally between the claimants. The cross-objections preferred by the 3rd respondent are dismissed without costs.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The claimant-appellants receive an enhanced compensation of Rs. 40,000/- payable by APSRTC, apportioned equally among them. The cross-objections of APSRTC are dismissed (without costs).
- On maintainability: The Court's reasoning reinforces the principle — supported by cited precedents — that "legal representative" under the Motor Vehicles Act should be given a wide meaning and that persons who represent the estate of the deceased can maintain claims even if they are not the specific classes named in Section (1A) of the Fatal Accidents Act. Thus the death of one legal representative (here the father) during proceedings does not automatically cause abatement where others represent the estate and are on record.
- No broader or novel precedent beyond the application of extant authorities and statutory interpretation is announced; the Court applied existing principles to the facts and modified quantum accordingly.
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Secundrabad dated 31-3-80 in O.P No. 297 of 1978 awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in all towards compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
2. The deceased Surya Rao was aged about 28 years. He was unmarried. He was working as a Testing Engineer in B.H.E.L, Ramachandrapuram earning about Rs. 1050-50 ps. Per month. On 5-9-1977 at about 7-30 A.M he was going in the bus APZ 6789 belonging to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation to his work place at Rama-chandrapuram. On the way the Bus collided with a lorry coming in the opposite direction belonging to the 2nd respondent. In the accident Surya Rao sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. His father P. Suryanarayana his five sisters and one brother filed the petition before the Accident Claims Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- on the ground that the deceased Sury a Rao was the sole bread-winner of the family. The first respondent is the Insurance Company with which the lorry was insured. The’ 2nd respondent is the owner of the lorry and the third respondent is the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, the owner of the Bus. The Insurance Company filed a counter that they are not liable to pay compensation and in any event their liability is limited to Rs. 50,000/-. The owner of the lorry remained exparte.
3. The 3rd respondent A.P State Road Transport Corporation contended that the bus was going at normal speed at the time of accident, that the lorry which was coming in the opposite direction at a high speed had swerved to its right and dashed against the bus and thus the accident was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver.
4. On a consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal found that on the date of the accident, the R.T.C bus was going on the road not intended for the vehicles going towards Ramachandrapuram side, as the road intended, for the vehicles going towards Ramachandrapuram was closed for vehicular’ traffic, that the bus was going at more than ordinary speed, that the lorry was also coming at more than the ordinary speed and both the lorry and the bus are equally negligent. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded towards compensation and the same was directed to be paid in two equal halts by respondents 1 and 2 together one half and the 3rd respondent one half i.e, 5000/- to be paid by respondent 1 and 2 jointly and severally and a sum of Rs. 5000/- ‘by the 3rd respondent. Interest was awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the Insurance Company preferred C.M.A No. 501 of 1980 and the claimants preferred C.M.A No. 748 of 1980 Unfortunately these two appeals are not clubbed and C.M.A No. 501 of 1980 was already disposed of by this court. The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company was allowed holding that there was no negligence on the part of, the lorry driver and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent Page: 990driving of the driver of the bus It was also held that the amount awarded is not excessive. The result was that the R.T.C alone was liable for the payment of compensation whatever the quantum be.
6. This appeal is by the claimants. They say that the amount awarded is wholly indequate. The deceased was aged only 21 years and was anrg Rs. 1000/- amonth he was the sole bread-winner and his death resulted in a great loss to the estate. They contend that the amount claimed by them should have been awarded.
7. The A.P.S.R.T.C filed Cross-objections contending that since the father of the deceased died during the pendency of the claim the petition had abated. Hiving regard to the circumstances of the case, the amount awarded is not inadequate or unreasonable.
8. The accident occurred on 5-8-1977. The petition for compensation was preferred by 7 person petitioner No. 1 is the father, petilioners 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are the sisters and petitioner No. 5 is the brother of the deceased. The father died during the pendency of the petition. Petitioners 2 to 7 who were already on record were brought on record again as Legal representatives of the deceased.
9. Under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act, an application for compensation may be made by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased where death has resulted from the accident. The father is undoubtedly a legal representative. But Mr. Harinath, the learned Counsel contended that after the death of the father, the petition does not survive. He invited my atten tion to Section (1 A) of the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which says that any acticn to recover damages on the death of a person caused by a wrong ful act shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child and shall be brought by the executor, administrator or representative of the deceased. It is urged that the word “representative” in Section (1A) does not mean a ‘legal representative of the kind contemplated in the Civil Procedure Code, but must have reference to the earlier words in the same Section “for the benefit of the wife, husband, parents and child”. Since the deceased is an unmarried person and his only parent, the father died during the pendency of the proceedings, the petition had abated.
10. The Fatal Accidents Act is of the year 1855. Several Legislations were passed since then, out of which one legislation is the Motor Vehicles Act. Sections 110 to 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for the adjudication of the claims for compensation on behalf of the victims of a motor accident and the complete machinery for the adjudication of such claims. Under Section 110-F the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is specifi cally ousted and instead the Claims Tribunal was vested with the power to decide the claims. These provisions have to be read along with the Indian Fatal Accidents Act. While the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act relate to general accidents the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act pertain to claims arising out of motor accidents. The provisions of both the Acts have Page: 991to be read harmoniously and in the case of any conflict the special provisions should prevail. Therefore, we have to go by the words used in Sections 110 to 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that Sections 110 to 110-F do not lay down any new liability and it only provides for machinery for adjudication of claims for compenation I do not agree. The provision of the Fatal Accidents Act do not exclude the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. I am therefore, unable to accept the contention that it is only the Fatal Accidents Act that governs the case and the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act have no application.
11. As I said earlier, both the acts have to be read together harmoniously.
12. The next question for consideration is what is the meaning of “legal representative” mentioned in the Motor Vehicles Act. We do not find a definition in the Motor Vehicles Act. The scope of this expression came up before several Courts in India and it was held that it has a very wide meaning and includes all representatives of the deceased.
13. In Mohd. Habibullah v. Seethammal A.I.R 1967, Madras 123 it was held that a married sister of the deceased can bring an action for compensation as a legal representative of the victim.
14. In Vanguard Insurance Co. v. Hanumantha Rao 1975 (1) An. W.R Page 327 the fact were almost identical. The deceased had no wife and children. His mother was alive. She died after having made a claim in regard to her own loss and also loss to the estate of the deceased. On her death, the brother had come on record. It was contended that the brother cannot be said to maintain action. This Court repelled that contention and held that in law, the brother represents the estate of the deceased person. The learned Judges referred to Perianal v. Etlusamy Reddiar 1974 (1) M.L.J Pgge 292 in which it is said that any one who represents the estate of the deceased is entitled to claim compensation towards loss to the estate and the person who repesents the estate need not necessarily be the heir of the deceased and the brother and sister in the absence of the parents are entitled to claim loss to the parents of the deceased.
15. In Megjibhai v. Chaturbhai A.I.R 1977, Gujarat, Page 195 a claim application filed by the nephews of the deceased was held to be maintainable and that it could not be thrown out on the grounds that the claimants were not the persons named in Section (1A) of the Fatal Accidents Act.
16. Thus the various decisions referred to above settle the law on the subject and the legal representatives do not mean only the persons referred to in the Fatal Accidents Act, but every person, who represents the estate of the deceased.
17. The next question for consideration is whether the amount awarded is reasonable. The compensation contemplated under Section Page: 992110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act is wider than under the Fatal Accidents Act, and the Courts are to be guided while awarding compensation to the dependants of the deceased by the principle that the compensation assessed must be just. No rigid formula can be laid down. In each and every case arumber of factors peculiar to the life and circumstances of the family concerned must be taken into account. This is likely to introduce an element of conjecture. But reasonable conjectures could always be made, of course, not wild speculations.
18. In the present case, the deceased is the sole bread-winner of the family. He was working as a Testing Engineer and drawing a salary of Rs. 1000/- per month. He left behind his father, five sisters and one brother. The father died during the pendency of the proceedings. Only one sister is married. Had the deceased lived, being the sole earning member and the lead of the family after the father, he had the obligation to get the sisters married and provide good education to the brother. The dependants are 5 in number. They have to be maintained at least till they attain majority. The sisters have to be married. The deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 1000/- a month. Even if he had spent Rs. 500.r on himself, he would have spent the balance for the family. On an average, the period of dependence can be fixed at 6 years. At the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for 6 years, it comes to Rs. 36,000/-. In all a sum of Rs. 40,000.is the just compensation. The trial Court awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 10,000- which is wholly inadequate and unrelated to the circumstances of the case.
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs and the judgment of the lower Court is modified and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is awarded towards compensation as against Rs. 10,000/- given by the Court below to be paid by the 3rd respondent the A.P State Road Transport Corporation. The amount shall be apportioned between the claimants equally consequently the cross objections preferred by the 3rd respondent and dismissed without costs.
Alert