Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1740 (ALL)

KAILASH WATI v. RAM NARAIN GUPTA

2003-08-05

RAJES KUMAR

body2003
RAJES KUMAR, J. The present appeal under Section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "act") is directed against the order of award dated 11-4-1980 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/iiird Additional District Judge, Allahabad, by which a 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. 00 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, Smt. Kailash Wati and four minor children and his mother, Smt. Mehi Lal, who have filed the claim petition as the claimants under the Act. The deceased was 40 years of age at the time of the accident and was 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. 5,150 and after deducting 30%, the amount which could be used on himself a sum of Rs. 3,434 was estimated which the deceased was expected to spend every year on his dependents had he been alive. The Tribunal further observed that the deceased would have survived for 19 years more. Thus the total money expected to be spent by the deceased on the dependents was estimated at Rs. 65,246. The Tribunal thereafter made a deduction of Rs. 15,000 on the ground that the mother was 75 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 19 years and they would ceased to be dependents allowed the deduction of Rs. 15,000. The Tribunal further reduced the amount by 33% on account of lump sum, payment which was calculated at Rs. 17,015. The Tribunal further allowed a sum of Rs. 100 towards mental shock and physical pain and sufferings and a sum of Rs. 100 was allowed towards loss of conjugal-consortium and Rs. 100 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. 17,015. The Tribunal further allowed a sum of Rs. 100 towards mental shock and physical pain and sufferings and a sum of Rs. 100 was allowed towards loss of conjugal-consortium and Rs. 100 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 Sri Sarv Singh, holding brief of Sri A. L. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has not disputed the amount of Rs. 3,434 which the deceased was expected to spent every year on his dependents had he been alive and thereafter the total money expected to be spent by the deceased on his dependents to the extent of Rs. 65,246. He challenged the order on the ground that the reduction of Rs. 15,000 on the ground that the mother was aged about 75 years and the minor children would have become major before 19 years and ceased to be dependents is erroneous. In this regard he submitted that the total money expected to be spent by the deceased in 19 years was not only on the mother or minor but his widow was also available which would utilize the money. He further submitted that the further reduction by 33% to the extent of Rs. 17,015/- 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 future 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 mental shock and physical pain and sufferings and towards conjugal-consortium and for the loss of paternal affection and care to the minor children. He prayed that under these head the amount should be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the interest awarded @ 6% is not justified. According to him, it should be 9%. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the material available on record. 7. He prayed that under these head the amount should be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the interest awarded @ 6% is not justified. According to him, it should be 9%. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the material available on record. 7. In my opinion, the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting a sum of Rs. 15,000 on the ground that the mother was aged about 75 years and the minor would become major after sometime. Once the amount expected to be save and spent by the deceased on his dependents 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 alive and what they could not get on account of death in the accident. The minor must have become major but they could get financial help from their father likewise widow could get the help during her entire life time and therefore, the deduction of Rs. 15,000 in my opinion was not justified. In my opinion, the further deduction of Rs. 17,015 being 33% on account of the lump sum payment is also not justified. The amount which the deceased was expected to spend every year on his dependents was calculated uniformly for the entire 19 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 and others v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another reported in 1992 ACJ 300, 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. 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. J. K. Moldi, 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 Radha 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 Apex Court the deduction of Rs. 17,015 is wholly unjustified. I am of the view that the Tribunal has awarded a nominal amount of Rs. 2,000 towards mental shock and physical pain and sufferings. Normally it is allowed at Rs. 2,500. 10. In the circumstances, I allow Rs. 2,500 towards mental shock and physical pain and sufferings. I further allow a sum of Rs. 1,000 towards conjugal-consortium and a sum of Rs. 1,000 for the loss of paternal affection and care to the minor children. 11. In view of the decision of the apex Court in the case of Abati Bezbaruah v. Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India and another, reported in 2003 (3) SCC 148 , I allow interest @ 9%. 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 allowed in part. .