Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 297 (RAJ)

Pappu v. Ghanshyam Pandey

2011-02-08

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since all these misc. appeals relate to common award dated 6.1.2000 passed in Claim Petition Nos. 548/1997, 549/1997, 724/1997, 545/1997 and 546/1997 by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur City Jaipur, (in short the MACT) they are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 21.7.2000, passed following order in all the misc. appeals mentioned above and in other similar misc. appeals : "These 11 appeals have been filed against a common award of the Tribunal. Out of these 11 appeals, as many as five appeals No. 723/2000, 726/2000, 732/2000, 737/2000 and 727/2000 have been filed by claimant Pappu. The appeal No. 727/2000 has been filed because of the injuries suffered by him, whereas other appeals have been filed claiming compensation on account of death of mother, father, wife and daughter, that is, he filed four separate claim applications. In each of his claim applications the appellant has claimed dependency compensa-tion as well whereas he himself was major and was earning. The present appeals have been filed for enhancement of compensation. I am issuing notice to respondents not only for enhancement but whether one claimant can claim dependency compensation on account of death of his various relatives dying in the same accident. Rules is made returnable within four weeks. The respondents are at liberty to assist as to whether in such circumstances the dependency can be claimed on account of death of each of his relative other than the compassionate grounds such as loss of affection etc. Notice are also issued to counsel for appellant as to whether dependency as claimed and awarded to appellant be reduced or not in all cases. In all the aforesaid cases notice be issued to respondents, as all these 11 appeals are arising out of the same accident and same award. All the aforesaid appeals be tagged with. The appeals be listed on 25.8.2000." 4. The facts in brief are that on 22.3.97 Fakruddin, Jammo Begum, Jaida Bano, Baby Guljar, Smt. Najma, Mohammed Arif, Ahmad Khan, Noor Bano, Nagma, Sajjo, Pappu and Babli were going by Maruti Van No. RJ 14 T 1615 from Ajmer towards Jaipur. All the aforesaid appeals be tagged with. The appeals be listed on 25.8.2000." 4. The facts in brief are that on 22.3.97 Fakruddin, Jammo Begum, Jaida Bano, Baby Guljar, Smt. Najma, Mohammed Arif, Ahmad Khan, Noor Bano, Nagma, Sajjo, Pappu and Babli were going by Maruti Van No. RJ 14 T 1615 from Ajmer towards Jaipur. The van was being driven with moderate speed by its driver on he correct side of the road. When the van reached near mid-way just ahead of Dudu, a Tanker No. HR 38 0794 being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver came from opposite direction and by violating the traffic rules and by coming on the wrong side, hit the van. Because of the hit the van overturned and caught fire. In this accident Fakruddin, Jammo Begum, Smt. Jaida, Baby Guljar, Islamuddin, Ahmad Khan Mohammad Arif and Smt. Nazma died and other persons sustained serious injuries. Different claim petitions were filed by the injured persons and legal representatives of other deceased persons. All the claim petitions were consolidated and have been decided by the same award. After framing the issues, and recording the evidence and on consideration of documents submitted by both the parties, the MACT vide its common award dated 6.1.2000 granted compensation to the claimants. Against the award dated 6.1.2000 the above appeals have been filed for enhancement of the compensation. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the MACT manifestly erred in awarding the amount of compensation erred in awarding the amount of compensation to the claimants appellants in a lump sum way. The MACT has not followed the settled principle of calculating the amount of compensation by way of fixing a proper amount of dependency and by multiplying the same with proper multiplier. The MACT should have awarded a much higher amount to the claimants under the head of loss of love and affection. The learned counsel placed reliance on Lata Wadha and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2001 ACJ 1735) and Manju Devi and another vs. Musfir Paswan and another (2005 ACJ 99). The learned counsel prayed for enhancing the amount of compensation. 6. On the other hand, Mr. The learned counsel placed reliance on Lata Wadha and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2001 ACJ 1735) and Manju Devi and another vs. Musfir Paswan and another (2005 ACJ 99). The learned counsel prayed for enhancing the amount of compensation. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Prakash Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the United India Insurance Company Limited supported the common award of the MACT and contended that the award has been rightly passed and the claimants are not entitled for any enhanced compensation. In the case of death of a two months child, the MACT granted compensation lump sum in the amount of Rs. 70,000/-. Similarly for the death of a two year child a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded. For the death of sales officer the MACT granted compensation in the amount of Rs. 4,42,000/-. For the death of house wife the MACT granted Rs. 2,14,000/-. For the work of Embroidery by a deceased woman the MACT granted compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,76,000/-. For awarding compensation the MACT considered all the pros and cons and thereafter granted the compensation. In these circumstances the learned counsel argued that the claimants are not entitled for any further enhancement of amount and all the appeals deserve dismissal. He has placed reliance on Kaushalya Devi vs. Shri Karan Arora and others (2007) 3 T.A.C. 16 (SC) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Syed Ibrahim and others (2007) (4) TAC 385 (SC). 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and in my view the MACT has not committed any error in computing the compensation. 8. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at the rulings cited by the parties and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court. 9. In State of Haryana vs. Jasbir Kaur ( 2003(7) SCC 484 ), it was held as under : "7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense 'damages' which in turn appears to it be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be 'just' and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be 'just' compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of 'just' compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression 'which appears to it to be just' a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression 'just' denotes equitability, fairness and reasonable-ness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello vs. Maharashtra S.R.T.C. 1999(1) SCC 90 ). 10. There are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totality of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or the splendor of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape-measure. The determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non-earning person. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. the question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. the question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents. In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by his parents during the child's lifetime. But this will not necessarily bar the parents' claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. 11. The Apex Court in Kaushalya Devi vs. Shri Karan Arora and others (supra) following the principle laid down by House of Lords in the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. vs. Jenkins (1913) A.C. 1, and Lord Atkinson observed as under : '... all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact - there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first that the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can I think, be drawn from circumstances other than and different from them.' 12. The Apex Court in Lata Wadha ( 2001(8) SCC 197 ) while computing compensation made distinction between deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years. 13. The Apex Court in Kaushalya Devi vs. Shri Karan Arora and others (supra) in para No. 10 held as under : 10. The Apex Court in Lata Wadha ( 2001(8) SCC 197 ) while computing compensation made distinction between deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years. 13. The Apex Court in Kaushalya Devi vs. Shri Karan Arora and others (supra) in para No. 10 held as under : 10. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation." 14. In the case of Manju Devi and anther vs. Musafir Paswan and another (supra) the Apex Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 2,25,000/- from Rs. 90,000/- for the death of a boy of aged 13 years. As per Schedule Second to the Motor Vehicles act, for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 was made applicable and he being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was taken as the income. In this manner the Apex Court determined the compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/-. This ruling cannot be made applicable in the cases of two months boy and two years boy. 15. Now I may consider the compensation awarded in each case in which appeals have been filed for enhancing the compensation applying the principles indicated in the above cases. SBCMA 732/2000 : 16. The claimants Pappu and Kum. Babli @ Shabnam filed claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 20,25,000/- for the death of Guljar aged one year. The MACT observed in the judgment that as per the post-mortem report the age of Guljar was determined to be two months. for the death and love and affection one time compensation in the amount of Rs. 70,000/- was awarded by the MACT. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. The MACT observed in the judgment that as per the post-mortem report the age of Guljar was determined to be two months. for the death and love and affection one time compensation in the amount of Rs. 70,000/- was awarded by the MACT. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. The appellants in these circumstances not entitled for claiming any enhanced compensation. The appeal filed by the claimants deserves to be rejected. SBCMA 737/2000 17. The claimants Pappu and Kum. Babli @ Shabnam filed further claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 28,46,000/- for the death of Jayda, wife of Pappu and mother of Babli. The MACT determined the age of Jayda to be 22 years. The claimants claimed that Jayda was earning Rs. 3,000/- by doing the work of Embroidery. The MACT determined the amount to be incurred by Jayda, towards her family as Rs. 1,000/-. The MACT after applying the multiplier of 17 determined the compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,04,000/- and in the other heads determined the compensation to be payable as Rs. 10,000/-. In this manner total claim amount was determined to be Rs. 2,14,000/-. I have considered the evidence produced by the parties and the submissions made by the non-claimants, the compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,14,000/- determined for the death of Jayada, cannot be said to be excessive and further the claimants are not entitled for any enhancement in this amount as the claimants have not produced any cogent evidence to support that she was earning Rs. 3,000/-. Thus the award of Rs. 2,14,000/- cannot be said to be unjustified. The appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . filed by for the death of Najma, wife of Mohammed Rafiq and mother of Nagma. The MACT determined the age of Najma to be 25 years. The claimants claimed that Najma was earning Rs. 3,000/- by doing the work. But the claimants have not produced any certificate regarding her working. The MACT treating her to be a house wife determined her income as Rs. 1,000/- to be incurred by her on her family. The MACT after applying the multiplier of 18 determined the compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,16,000. 3,000/- by doing the work. But the claimants have not produced any certificate regarding her working. The MACT treating her to be a house wife determined her income as Rs. 1,000/- to be incurred by her on her family. The MACT after applying the multiplier of 18 determined the compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,16,000. The MACT also awarded Rs. 50,100/- amount incurred on medicines etc. and in the other heads determined Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. In this manner total claim amount was determined to be Rs. 2,76,000/-. I have considered the evidence produced by the parties and the submissions made by eh non-claimants. The compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,76,000/- determined for the death of Najma, cannot be said to be excessive and further the claimants are not entitled for any enhancement in this amount as the claimants have not produced any cogent evidence to support that she was earning Rs. 3,000/-. Thus the award of Rs. 2,76,000/- cannot be said to be unjustified. The appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement deserves to be rejected. SBCMA 725/2000 20. The claimants Mohammed Rafiq and Kumari Nagma filed claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 30,25,000/- for the death of Arif aged two years. The MACT observed in the judgment that as per the post mortem report the age of Arif was determined to be two year. For the death and love and affection one time compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded by the MACT. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. The appellants in these circumstances are not entitled for claiming any enhanced compensation. The appeal being devoid of merit stands rejected. 21. For the reasons and the findings mentioned above, misc. appeals Nos. 732/2000, 737/2000, 724/2000, 739/2000 and 725/2000 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, fail and are hereby rejected. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.