Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 436 (KAR)

H. v. RANGARAJU VS MUQBULPASHA

2003-06-06

T.S.THAKUR

body2003
TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nanjangud, whereby M. V. C. No. 66 of 1995 has been allowed in part and a sum of Rs, 58,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p. a. awarded as compensation to the appellant for the death of his wife in a motor vehicle accident. ( 2 ) THE appellant accompanied by his wife late Smt. Manjula were travelling in a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus from B. R. Hills to Mysore on 4-6-1995. While the bus had yet to emerge from the winding hill section of the B. R. Hills, it plunged into a gorge nearly 500 feet deep resulting in injuries to several passengers and the death of Smt. Manjula. The appellant-husband of the deceased Smt. Manjula filed M. V. C. No. 66 of 1995 before the Tribunal alleging that the accident in question had occurred entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. A claim for payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 7,54,000/- was on that basis made by the appellant against the Corporation. This claim was opposed by the corporation on several grounds including the ground that the accident had not occurred on account of any rash or negligent driving of the bus by its driver as alleged. The Tribunal framed three issues and answered the same in favour of the appellant in terms of the judgment impugned in this appeal. The tribunal held that the accident in question had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and that the appellant in his capacity as the husband of the deceased Smt. Manjula was entitled to claim compensation. While examining the question of quantum of compensation payable to the claimant, the Tribunal placed reliance upon the decision of the high Court of Rajasthan in Ram Kumar and Others v Mahaveer and Others, to hold that even when there was no reliable evidence to prove that the deceased wife was having any independent income, the gratuitous services rendered by her as a housewife to the appellant were compensable in terms of money. These services the Tribunal assessed at Rs. 350/- p. m. borrowing support from a similar assessment made in the decision referred to above. These services the Tribunal assessed at Rs. 350/- p. m. borrowing support from a similar assessment made in the decision referred to above. Since the deceased was hardly 21 years old, the Tribunal chose a multiple of 17 to determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 75,600/ -. Having done so, the tribunal adverted to the question whether the entire amount determined by it could be awarded towards compensation in favour of the appellant. That question was answered by the Tribunal in the negative. It observed that the appellant had not come clean by making a statement whether or not he had remarried. The gratuitous services which the appellant had lost on account of the death of his wife would in the event. of remarriage of the husband become available to him from his second wife, in which event the husband would not strictly speaking suffer any loss monetarily or otherwise on account of the death of his first wife. The Tribunal accordingly reduced the amount of compensation on account of loss of dependency to the appellant to Rs. 50,000/- to which it added a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 1,000/- towards transportation of the dead body from the husband to the house. The total amount of Rs. 58,000/- so determined was made payable with interest at the rate of 9% p. a. from the date of the claim petition till the deposit of the amount. ( 3 ) APPEARING for the appellant, Mr. Nataraju submitted that the Tribunal had fallen in a palpable error in determining a sum of Rs. 75,600/- only as compensation payable for the death of the deceased Smt. Manjula. He urged that the 1994 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act had introduced the concept of notional income in cases where the victims of road accident were not proved to have had any definite source of income. The Tribunal ought to have according to the learned Counsel taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- and assessed the amount of compensation accordingly by deducting one-third of the said amount towards her personal expenses. The amount of compensation so determined would have according to the learned Counsel been in the neighbourhood of Rs. 2 lakhs if not more. Alternatively, he submitted that even if the compensation amount of Rs. 15,000/- and assessed the amount of compensation accordingly by deducting one-third of the said amount towards her personal expenses. The amount of compensation so determined would have according to the learned Counsel been in the neighbourhood of Rs. 2 lakhs if not more. Alternatively, he submitted that even if the compensation amount of Rs. 75,600/- determined by the Tribunal was found to be correctly assessed, the tribunal was not justified in reducing the amount to Rs. 50,000/- only on the assumption that the appellant had contracted a second marriage. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondents-Mr. Dabali argued that the entire object behind the assessment of compensation was to ensure, as far as possible, that a road accident whether the same has caused bodily injuries or resulted in the death of the victim is compensated in terms of money having regard to the evidence produced by the parties and the monetary loss that the victim or his/her heirs may have suffered. That being so, the Court cannot according to mr. Dabali remain oblivious of subsequent developments such as the remarriage by the husband in a case where the wife has died in a motor vehicle accident. If the husband decides to remain unmarried after any such unfortunate accident, he may be entitled to the payment of such amount of compensation as judicially recognised methods may permit. In case however the husband decides to remarry, the very foundation on which the claim for compensation is made gets displaced with the result that the amount of compensation in cases where the husband does not remarry is bound to be different from cases where the husband contracts a second marriage. He drew my attention to the decision of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High court in Babu v Kacharu and Others, to show that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was in the facts and circumstances of the case a just and fair compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant-husband. He also placed reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Y. R. Nagaraju and Others v United India Fire and General Insurance Company limited and Another, in support of his submission that remarriage of the husband is an important circumstance for purposes of determination and award of compensation for any loss arising out of the motor vehicles accident. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal has as noticed above proceeded to assess the amount of compensation on the basis that the services which the deceased was rendering as a housewife could be valued at Rs. 350/- p. m. That conclusion is entirely based on the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in Ram Kumar's case, supra. The net effect of the said assumption is that the income of the deceased or her contribution to the family is limited to Rs. 4,200/- p. a. That view was in my opinion largely conservative. I say so because after the 1994 amendment to the Act, the Parliament has itself recognised that in case of non-earning victims of road accidents, the annual notional income could be taken at Rs. 15,000/ -. If that standard was applied to the instant case, the deceased Smt. Manjula's income could be taken to be at Rs. 15,000/- p. a. out of which even if one were to deduct one-third towards her personal expenses, her contribution to the family in terms of money could be taken at Rs. 10,000/- p. a. The determination of compensation would then proceed on that basis by application of a suitable multiple which looking to the age of the deceased could be as high as 18. The question however is whether any such determination could by itself entitle the claimant-husband to an award in his favour. The Tribunal has answered that in the negative and in my opinion for good reasons. Even when the services rendered to her husband and her family may not be capable of being assessed in terms of money on any scientific basis, loss of services is compensable for purposes of claims under the Motor vehicles Act. In Y. R. Nagaraju 's case, supra, the Division Bench of this court had in unequivocal terms held that loss of dependency need not be confined to money payments. It would include loss of goods and services. Consequently, even when a housewife may have no independent employment, her contribution to the family in the form of service could and were required to be assessed in terms of money. At the same time, the Court had cautioned that the benefit of services rendered by the mother to her children could not be unlimited in terms of period over which they are rendered. At the same time, the Court had cautioned that the benefit of services rendered by the mother to her children could not be unlimited in terms of period over which they are rendered. The services had to have some limitation which in that case was considered to be limited to 10 to 12 years from the date of the death of the victim. What is important is that in the case of husbands, the period for which the services could be valued for purposes of determination of compensation was held to be shorter subject to the contingency of remarriage. The following passage from the decision in Y. R. Nagaraju's case is in this regard apposite:"the children are aged 4 and 2 respectively. The age upto which the services of a mother are of particular value to them cannot be a matter which could be limited by law. Indeed, in emotional terms, the services of a mother endure as long as that relationship lasts, irrespective of whether the off-spring is a son or a daughter. But for purposes of compensation, the age upto which they can be said to benefit from services has to have some limitations. In this present case we think a period of 10 to 12 years from death could be said to be period of loss so far the children are concerned. In the case of the husband it would perhaps be less, subject to a further contingency of remarriage. But in this case the children are very young and the uncertainties of the future are many. The uncertainties and vicissitudes of their own future should also be put into the scales to put the estimates down". ( 6 ) SUFFICE it to say that remarriage by the husband is an important feature which the Court is required to keep in view while determining the extent of the monetary loss on account of loss of services rendered by the deceased wife. The longer the period for which the husband remains unmarried, the higher will the amount of compensation be conversely, if the husband decides to remarry shortly after the death of his wife, the period for which the loss of services may be considered would be shorter proportionately reducing the amount of compensation payable to him. ( 7 ) THAT the appellant has remarried is not seriously disputed. ( 7 ) THAT the appellant has remarried is not seriously disputed. No statement or a declaration was made by the appellant before the Tribunal at any stage to the effect that he has decided to remain unmarried for the rest of his life. The tribunal has in the absence of any such declaration and affirmative assertion correctly assumed that the appellant has contracted a second marriage shortly after the death of the first wife. The fact that the appellant had married the deceased Smt. Manjula hardly three weeks before the unfortunate accident also lends support to the possibility of the appellant having remarried. In any case, the order passed by the Tribunal rests on the assumption that the appellant had in fact contracted a second marriage. The appellant has not disputed the correctness of that assumption in the memo of appeal which he ought to have done if the same was factually incorrect. The memo of appeal does not contain a murmur to the effect that the appellant has not remarried. It is therefore reasonable to hold that the inference drawn by the Tribunal that the appellant has remarried was justified. In order to be doubly sure, Mr. Nataraju was asked to state whether the appellant had or had not remarried, in response to which learned Counsel expressed his inability to make any statement even at this stage. We will therefore have to proceed on the basis that the appellant had contracted a second marriage. If that be so, the multiple applicable for determination of compensation on account of loss of services must get reduced from 18 to the number of years for which the appellant had remained unmarried. Although, there is no clear evidence as to when the appellant contracted the second marriage, yet even if one were to assume that the appellant had remained unmarried for a period of five years, the total amount of compensation on account of loss of services would be Rs. 10,000/- x 5 i. e. , Rs. 50,000/ -. Judged from any angle, therefore, the award of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of dependency in addition to other amounts on account of loss of consortium, funeral and transportation expenses taking the total to rs. 58,000/- was a just and fair compensation. There is in the circumstance no room for any enhancement of the amount in favour of the appellant. Judged from any angle, therefore, the award of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of dependency in addition to other amounts on account of loss of consortium, funeral and transportation expenses taking the total to rs. 58,000/- was a just and fair compensation. There is in the circumstance no room for any enhancement of the amount in favour of the appellant. ( 8 ) THERE is no merit in this appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any orders as to costs. --- *** --- .