Tehmina P. Jasawalla v. Mahadeo Sitaram Ghadi And Others

Vaze, J.:— Tehmuras P. Pesi Jasawalla, a young lad of sixteen who had just passed his Cambridge from Hill Grange High School, was waiting at the pedestrian crossing near the junction of Dahanukar Marg and N. Gamadia Road near Maheshwari Niketan. Motor car No. MRJ 2840 proceeding along Carmichael Road suddenly took a turn towards the left and knocked down Tehmuras P. Pesi Jasawalla fatally on 11.12.1975 As Tehmuras died inspite of being taken to Nair Hospital, his mother Mrs. Tehmina P. Jasawalla made an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Greater Bombay, for an award of compensation on account of the death of her son due to fatal injuries. The Tribunal by its order dated 13th December, 1982 awarded a sum of Rs. 31,400/- to the applicant with corresponding costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order till realisation. Aggrieved, Mrs. Tehmina P. Jasawalla has filed this appeal.

2. Two issues have been canvassed before this Court by the appellant. In the first place, Mr. K.J Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that looking at the scholastic and extra curriculum activities as well as the family background of the deceased, the quantum of compensation arrived at is ridiculously low. He further challenges the finding of the Tribunal forming the foundation for the calculation of the compensation, viz., that the deceased must have failed at least on two occasions in his school career. As regards the mode of arriving at the quantum of compensation, in such matters, the Supreme Court in C.K Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikultan Nair . 1970 A.C.J 110 S.C. has explained the dichotomy between section 1-A and section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act. The Court has laid down that there can be no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of the human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations but the amount recoverable depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. The life expectancy of the deceased or of the beneficiary whichever is shorter will have to be taken into consideration but the calculation should not be speculative or fanciful though an element of conjecture cannot be ruled out.

3. From the documents filed before the Tribunal it appears that the deceased was born on 3.1.1959 and joined Villa Theresa, a prestigious school of Bombay in K.G whereafter he moved on to the Hill Grange High School, at Peddar Road, Bombay, from where he passed the I.C.S.C Examination in November/December, 1975. Tehmuras joined the first Maharashtra Squadron N.C.C Group No. 33 and was awarded a certificate for the best turn out and was known to be an above average, hardworking and a good cadet. The deceased was a sportsman who won prizes in school racing, tug-of-war, free style, back stroke, butterfly stroke and breast stroke swimming, in group and individual events.

4. The learned member of the Tribunal did not think much of the sports certificates of the deceased and has observed:

“Proficiency in swimming merely suggests that he had more physical prowess.”

5. He also concluded that the deceased must have failed at least on two occasions, (emphasis supplied) though there was no basis for arriving at such a conclusion.

6. In the highly competitive employment market of Bombay, a Parsi boy with a convent and public school background with sports credits to boot is likely to win his spurs for certain types of live-wire jobs in the private sector, though he may trail behind in purely academic pursuits or allied avocations. We would not wish to be thought that we regard the products of conventional schools as in any way inferior to those passing out of convent or public schools but are taking note of the fact of life regarding preferences shown by the prospective employers of private sector.

7. The learned member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has adopted the basis of Rs. 400/- per month as the probable income of the deceased, out of which a moiety would be available to the mother of the deceased by way of support. The learned member cuts down the available financial support from the deceased, after marriage, which, according to him, would have taken place after about seven years. To the sum so arrived, the learned member adds a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of addition to the estate of the deceased.

8. As regards the addition of Rs. 5,000/-, under section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act, parties have no quarrel. But coming to the figure of Rs. 200/- per month made available to the applicant, we find that it is rather on the lower side. In view of the background of the family of the applicant, we feel that Rs. 300/- per month flat for a period of fifteen years representing direct benefit to the applicant would be a reasonable amount for calculation. It is conceivable that the expenses of the deceased would go up if he entered the matrimonial bond but it can also be expected that correspondingly his income would have increased during that period in view of the experience gained. Consequently, instead of making such distinctions and evolving a graduated scale of income, we adopt a flat rate of Rs. 300/- per month as the monetary benefit that the applicant-mother would have obtained from her son.

9. That brings us to the figure of Rs. 54,000/- to which we add the uncontested sum of Rs. 5,000/- under section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act. Out of this aggregate of Rs. 59,000/-, we feel that, as observed by the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh State Transport Corporation, Bairagarh, Bhopal v. Sudhakar, certain allowances must be made for the uncertainty of life and for lumpsum payment because the calculation would necessarily take an element of reasonable prophecy in it. We feel that Rs. 9,000/- should be deducted from this amount of Rs. 59,000/- on this account which would raise the not amount of Rs. 31,400/- awarded by the learned member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, to Rs. 50,000/-. Coming to the question of interest, the learned counsel for the respondents, has taken us through the Roznama which shows that on very many occasions the matter was adjourned either because the applicant or her counsel were not in attendance or were praying for adjournment. In these premises, we do not feel that the order of the learned member of the Tribunal disentitling the applicant from interest from the date of application deserves to be disturbed.

10. The appeal succeeds partly and the opposite parties and the insurance company jointly and/or severally shall pay Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant with corresponding costs throughout and interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from 13th September, 1982, that is, the date of the order of the learned member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Greater Bombay, till realisation.