Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 91 (CHH)

KAMALNARAYAN DESHMUKH v. OM PRAKASH SAHU

2014-02-25

PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2014
ORDER 1. This appeal filed by the claimants arises out of the award dated 3.3.2012 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, Distt. Durg (in short "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No.62/2011 whereby in a death case compensation of Rs.95,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants. 2. Facts of the case, in brief are that on 21.5.2010 when Sandeep Kumar was riding his motorcycle, he was dashed by a matador bearing registration No. C.G.07C-4922, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and owned by respondent No.2. Thereafter, he was taken to hospital, however, during the course of treatment he died. 3. A claim case was filed by the claimants, who are father and mother of the deceased, before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.98.10 lacs under various heads, inter alia, pleading that at the relevant time, the deceased was 19 years of age, was a student of 2nd semester of engineering course. According to the claimants, the deceased was one of the brilliant students and would have achieved many goals in his life and would have earned substantially had he been alive. 4. However, learned Tribunal by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.95,000/- with interest @ 6% on the following heads: (i) Rs.75,000/- towards loss of dependency; (ii) Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love & affection; (iii) Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate; and (iv) Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the annual income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- whereas even if the notional income could have been considered, the same comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. He further submits that the multiplier of 10 has been applied by the Tribunal whereas in the present case, it should have been 18. Lastly, he submits that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is also on the much lower side and needs suitable enhancement. 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned award it has been argued by learned counsel for respondent No.3 that a just and reasonable compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal, which needs no interference by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned award it has been argued by learned counsel for respondent No.3 that a just and reasonable compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal, which needs no interference by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. In the present case, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.95,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants for the death of their young son of 19 years, who at the relevant time was pursuing his engineer course. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this amount is shockingly low and by no stretch of imagination can be termed as "just compensation". It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act, 1988 is required to make an award determining the quantum of compensation which is to be in real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be "just and reasonable". Although compensation for loss of limbs or life can not be weighed in golden scales, it has to be kept in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim/claimant. It should be "just" and not a bonanza; not a source of profit, but at the same time, should not be a pittance. There can be no straight jacket formula governing all cases for measuring the value of human life or limbs in terms of money. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any, of each case. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though a. wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal in respect of awarding compensation, but such assessment/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 reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness. If it is not so, it can not be just. 9. Undisputedly, at the time of death, Sandeep Kumar (deceased) was 19 years of age and was a student of 2nd semester of engineering course. He died on 21.5.2010 leaving behind his grief-stricken and helpless parents. For the purpose of computing compensation, the Tribunal has assessed annual income of the deceased @ Rs. 9. Undisputedly, at the time of death, Sandeep Kumar (deceased) was 19 years of age and was a student of 2nd semester of engineering course. He died on 21.5.2010 leaving behind his grief-stricken and helpless parents. For the purpose of computing compensation, the Tribunal has assessed annual income of the deceased @ Rs. 15,000/-, which looking to the age of the deceased and his academic qualification, appears to be highly disproportionate, and in fact, he would have earned substantially. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the minimum annual income the deceased would have got if he had been employed as an engineer can safely be assessed as Rs.50,000/-. (Ascertained on the basis of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another (2011) 1 SCC 343 . Since the deceased was bachelor and survived by his parents only, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 50% is required to be deducted from the annual earning of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. After making such deduction, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.25,000/-. Further, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of 18 would be applicable in the present case. If this multiplier is adopted, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- (25,000x18). 10. As regards the amount awarded towards conventional heads, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same definitely appears to be on much lower side and is required to be enhanced suitably. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and likewise the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards loss of estate is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- and the amount of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-. 11. In view of what has been discussed above, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs.5.35 lacs. Since the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.95,000/-, the appellants/claimants are now entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.4.40 lacs. This additional amount of compensation of Rs.4.40 lacs shall carry interest@ 6% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 12. Since the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.95,000/-, the appellants/claimants are now entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.4.40 lacs. This additional amount of compensation of Rs.4.40 lacs shall carry interest@ 6% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the award impugned is modified to the aforesaid extent.