Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1122 (MP)

M. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Jasram

2013-09-16

G.D.SAXENA

body2013
JUDGMENT The former appeal has been submitted by the appellant-MPSRTC against grant of compensation whereas latter has been moved on behalf of the claimants seeking enhancement of the award of compensation. Since both the appeals have stood up against the common Award dated 26th September, 2005 in Claim Cases No. 27/04 passed by the Second Additional Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena (M.P.), they are taken up together for hearing and final disposal by this order. 2. It is not in dispute by either of the parties that at the time of accident, the offending bus bearing No. MP-06/B-0936 was being driven by driver Suresh Chand whereas the appellant-MPSRTC was the registered owner. 3. The facts, in short, necessary for adjudication of the appeals are that on 23rd January, 2004, at around 4-15 in the evening, when deceased Kulveer, aged 14 years, son of the claimants just started for going on his bicycle to Porsa for his studies, at that juncture, respondent No. 2-Suresh Chand by driving a bus in a hectic speed hit his bicycle, as a result, Kulveer received injuries and died on the spot. On the report, an FIR was lodged and crime for offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal Court. 4. The claimants of the deceased Kulveer who are none else but the parents filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 11,70,000/- on account of death of their son. The learned claims tribunal after recording and considering the evidence awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,14,800/- with annual interest @ 6% on the award amount in favour of the claimants which was directed to be paid by the appellant. Having been dissatisfied with the award aforesaid, the claimants have also filed appeal for enhancement of the compensation, whereas the appellant-Corporation has come up against grant of award passed by the learned tribunal. 5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant-Corporation that there is an error committed in passing the Award by the learned tribunal. It is further submitted that the dependency and income of the deceased have wrongly been determined on the basis of the evidence and therefore the Award passed by the tribunal is liable to be set aside. 6. 5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant-Corporation that there is an error committed in passing the Award by the learned tribunal. It is further submitted that the dependency and income of the deceased have wrongly been determined on the basis of the evidence and therefore the Award passed by the tribunal is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the submissions on behalf of the claimants of the deceased are that learned tribunal erred in awarding compensation. It is submitted that by doing agricultural work, the deceased was not only extending help to his parents but assisted financially. It is further submitted that the tribunal failed to appreciate future prospects of the deceased and award amount under loss of non-pecuniary damages. On this basis, it is urged that the learned tribunal ought to have calculated the income in proper manner and after applying proper multiplier ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation. It is therefore prayed that by allowing the appeal the award amount may appropriately be enhanced with proper interest. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the record of the case and the law governing the situation. 8. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the award passed by the learned tribunal is adequate or liable to be enhanced in the light of the submissions put forth by the claimants. 9. Having gone through the deposition of the claimant and other available evidence, it appears that the deceased died at the age of 14 years. It has come in the evidence that by doing agricultural work, the deceased used to extend financial help @ Rs. 1,000/-, per month. Hence taking into consideration overall evidence, the notional income mentioned in the Second Schedule and the multiplier specified therein, in the opinion of this Court, pecuniary compensation under the loss of dependency has rightly been calculated in the present case. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants, the learned tribunal failed to award any damages for non-pecuniary loss. In case of school-going child in addition to compensation for pecuniary loss, compensation must also be granted for loss of future prospects of the child for the non-pecuniary loss. The question which calls for consideration is as to what would be compensation for loss of future prospects of the child under non-pecuniary loss. In case of school-going child in addition to compensation for pecuniary loss, compensation must also be granted for loss of future prospects of the child for the non-pecuniary loss. The question which calls for consideration is as to what would be compensation for loss of future prospects of the child under non-pecuniary loss. Under this head, compensation is paid for termination of life which results in constant pain and suffering. This pain and suffering does not depend upon the financial position of the victim or the claimant but rather on the capacity and the ability of the deceased to provide happiness to the claimant. This is because the non-pecuniary losses are paid for loss of prospective happiness which the claimant/victim would have enjoyed had the person/child not died at the tender age. Thus, while quantifying and arriving at a figure for loss of expectation of life, the Court has to keep in mind that this figure is not to be calculated for the prospective loss or further pecuniary benefits that have been awarded under another head, i.e., pecuniary loss. The compensation under this head is awarded for loss of life and not for loss of future pecuniary prospects. 10. In the case of Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2001) 8 SCC 197 , the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the term "Conventional Compensation" under the head of non-pecuniary compensation payable on account of pain and sufferings as a result of death and after considering the facts of the case it was pleased to grant Rs. 50,000/- as conventional figure. 11. Having thus considered the evidence on record and the fact that the deceased was good in studies, the compensation under the aforesaid head is quantified at Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, in addition to the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,14,800/- awarded by the learned MACT, further compensation under the head of non-pecuniary loss is awarded as Rs. 50,000/-. In this manner, total compensation comes to Rs. 1,64,800/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to receive total compensation as Rs. 1,64,800/- (Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, in addition to the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,14,800/- awarded by the learned MACT, further compensation under the head of non-pecuniary loss is awarded as Rs. 50,000/-. In this manner, total compensation comes to Rs. 1,64,800/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to receive total compensation as Rs. 1,64,800/- (Rs. One lakh sixty four thousand and eight hundred only) for the death of their son which resulted in the accident along with interest @ 7% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date on which the claim petition was filed before the tribunal till final payment of compensation amount is made, which shall be paid by the appellant-MPSRTC within a period of three months from today failing which it shall carry penal interest @ 9% p.a. 12. Resultantly, Misc. Appeal No. 2/2006 filed by the appellant-MPSRTC stands dismissed. Other appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 72/2006) filed by the appellants-claimants is hereby allowed in the manner aforesaid.