Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1736 (ALL)

Sonia (minor) v. Ram Narain Gupta

2003-08-05

RAJES KUMAR

body2003
RAJES KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal under section 110-D of Motor Vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the act) is directed against the order dated 11. 4. 1980 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal/third Additional District judge, Allahabad, by which a total sum of rs. 45,000 has been awarded towards the compensation. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 12. 11. 1975 at 10 a. m. near village Atsarai, g. T. Road, Saini Police Circle, District allahabad, when deceased was going on his left on the road a truck No. USF 4283 which was being driven rashly and negligently struck him and crushed him to death on the spot. The deceased left behind his widow, Sonia and two minor children and his father Durga Din, who have filed the claim petition as the claimants under the act. The deceased was 26 years of age at the time of accident and used to carry on marketing of agricultural produce, garden keeping and skilled labourer. The Tribunal on the consideration of entire facts and circumstances estimated annual income of the deceased at Rs. 4,130 and after deducting 33 per cent the amount which could be used on himself a sum of Rs. 2,750 was estimated which the deceased was expected to spend every year on his dependants had he been alive. The Claims Tribunal further observed that the deceased would have survived for 34 years more. Thus the total money expected to be spent by the deceased on the dependants was estimated at Rs. 93,500. The Tribunal thereafter made a deduction of Rs. 25,000 on the ground that the father was 78 years old and cannot be expected to live for a long time and the minor would become major in a period of much less than 34 years and they would cease to be dependants. The Claims tribunal further reduced the amount by 33 per cent on account of lump sum payment which was calculated at Rs. 23,233. The tribunal further allowed a sum of Rs. 500 towards mental shock and physical pain and suffering and a sum of Rs. 100 was allowed for loss of conjugal consortium and for the loss of paternal affection and care to the minor children. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 500 towards the funeral expenses. 23,233. The tribunal further allowed a sum of Rs. 500 towards mental shock and physical pain and suffering and a sum of Rs. 100 was allowed for loss of conjugal consortium and for the loss of paternal affection and care to the minor children. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 500 towards the funeral expenses. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the claimants filed the present appeal. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Sarv Singh, holding brief of Mr. A. L. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has not disputed the amount of Rs. 2,750 which the deceased was expected to spend every year on his dependants had he been alive and thereafter the total money expected to be spent by the deceased on his dependants to the extent of Rs. 93,500. He challenged the order on the ground that the reduction of Rs. 25,000 on the ground that the father was aged about 78 years and the minor children would have become major before 34 years and ceased to be dependants is erroneous. In this regard he submitted that the total money expected to be spent by the deceased in 34 years was not only on the father or minor but his widow was also available which would utilize the money. He further submitted that the further reduction by 33 per cent to the extent of Rs. 23,233 on account of the lump sum payment was not justified. In this regard, he submitted that the accident took place on 12. 11. 1975 and the order was passed on 11. 4. 1980 and the further inflation and the reduction of the money value had not been considered and, therefore, the reduction of the amount was not justified. He further submitted that the Tribunal has allowed a very nominal amount towards the mental shock and physical pain and suffering and towards conjugal consortium and for the loss of paternal affection and care to the minor children. He prayed that under these heads the amount should be enhanced. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants further submitted that the interest awarded at the rate of 6 per cent is not justified. According to him, it should be 9 per cent. He prayed that under these heads the amount should be enhanced. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants further submitted that the interest awarded at the rate of 6 per cent is not justified. According to him, it should be 9 per cent. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the tribunal and the material available on the record. ( 7 ) IN my opinion, the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in deducting a sum of Rs. 25,000 on the ground that the father was aged about 78 years and the minors would become major after sometime. Once the amount expected to be saved and spent by the deceased on his dependants had he been alive was estimated, there was no justification for any further deduction. The compensation under the Act to the claimants is to the extent what the claimants would get in case if the deceased would have been alive and what they could not get on account of death in the accident. The minors must have become major but they could get financial help from their father likewise widow could get the help during her entire lifetime and, therefore, the deduction of Rs. 25,000 in my opinion was not justified. In my opinion, the further deduction of Rs. 23,233 being 33 per cent on account of the lump sum payment is also not justified. The amount which the deceased was expected to spend every year on his dependants was calculated uniformly for the entire 34 years. There was no consideration of future inflation and reduction of the value of the rupee and, therefore, deduction on account of lump sum payment is not justified. ( 8 ) THE Honble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State road Trans. Corpn. , 1992 ACJ 300 (SC), has held as follows: "we are of the view that deduction of 1/3rd out of the assessed compensation on account of lump sum payment is not justified. The accident took place in july, 1977 and the litigation has come to an end, hopefully, today, 15 years thereafter. This court in Motor Owners insurance Co. Corpn. , 1992 ACJ 300 (SC), has held as follows: "we are of the view that deduction of 1/3rd out of the assessed compensation on account of lump sum payment is not justified. The accident took place in july, 1977 and the litigation has come to an end, hopefully, today, 15 years thereafter. This court in Motor Owners insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji modi, 1981 ACJ 507 (SC), held that the delay in the final disposal of motor accident compensation cases, as in all other classes of litigation, takes a sting out of the laws of compensation and added to that the monstrous inflation and the consequent fall in the value of rupee makes the compensation demanded years ago less than quarter of its value when it is received after such a long time. In manjushri Raha v. B. L. Gupta, 1977 acj 134 (SC), this court awarded compensation by multiplying the life expectancy without making any deductions. With the value of rupee dwindling due to high rate of inflation, there is no justification for making deduction due to lump sum payment. We, therefore, hold that the courts below were not justified in making lump sum deduction in this case. " ( 9 ) IN view of the judgment of the Supreme Court the deduction of Rs. 23,233 is wholly unjustified. I am of the view that the Claims Tribunal has awarded a nominal amount of Rs. 500 towards mental shock and physical pain and suffering. Normally it is allowed at Rs. 2,500. ( 10 ) IN the circumstances, I allow a sum of Rs. 2,500 towards mental shock and physical pain and suffering. The claim of rs. 100 towards conjugal consortium and for the loss of paternal affection and care to the minor children is very nominal. Looking to the age of the deceased, in my opinion, it should be Rs. 2,000. ( 11 ) IN view of the decision of the Apex court in the case of Arati Bezbaruah v. Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, 2003 ACJ 680 (SC), I allow interest at the rate of 9 per cent. ( 12 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Tribunal dated 11. 4. 1980 is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to modify its order in the light of the decision above. Appeal partly allowed. . .