Allahabad High Court
U.P.State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Kamal Devi on 16 August, 2017
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2534 of 2017
Appellant :- U.P.State Road Transport Corporation
Respondent :- Smt. Kamal Devi
Counsel for Appellant :- Samir Sharma,Sunil Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- A.L. Jaiswal
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
This appeal has been filed by the U.P. Transport Corporation against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad dated 22.8.1997 in MAC No. 48 of 1988.
It is a death case. According to the claim case, the deceased a five years old infant was crossing a road when a bus of the appellant corporation bearing registration no. URU-4139, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit him from the side. He received fatal injuries resulting in his death.
Before the Tribunal certain issues were framed including whether the accident had been caused by the bus of the corporation as claimed and also as to the negligence and compensation, if any to be awarded.
Upon evidence being led, the Tribunal found the accident had in fact been caused on account of rash and negligent conduct of the driver of the bus of the corporation bearing registration no. URU-4139. In his fairness, learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any serious challenge to this part of the award.
However, he is aggrieved by the fact that the Tribunal has awarded compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/-. In doing so, the Tribunal has assumed that the deceased may have been working as a manual labour and would have therefore been earning Rs. 1,500/- per month.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there was no basis to draw such inference or to assume such income of the deceased in absence of any evidence being led in that regard.
Also, the Tribunal has awarded certain amounts under heads which according to learned counsel for the appellant were not allowable in the case of the death of a minor child aged about 5 years. He then submits the Tribunal has made certain duplication, in the award by awarding no fault liability and then at the same time adding thereto compensation on the assumed loss of dependency.
Learned counsel for the respondent claimant, on the other hand relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satender reported in 2006 (13) SCC 60 submits that though minor children may not have earning capacity such as to determine the loss of dependency to award compensation on that basis, yet, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, certain amounts are to be awarded even on lumpsum basis.
Relying further on the aforesaid judgment, submits the Supreme Court had in the aforesaid case awarded compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- for the death of a 9 years old minor child.
In this regard para 12 of the aforesaid judgment is relevant for our purpose which is quoted herein below:-
"12 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 uncerainties 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."
I therefore, find, there would be no useful purpose served in examining the academic worth of the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant on the quantification of the compensation inasmuch as even if that argument is accepted, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satender (supra) some amount would become payable to the claimant for the accidental death of the minor child.
Then, it is seen that the accident in this case had occurred on 19.1.1983. As such the award of compensation at Rs. 1,80,000/- in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satender (supra) would be excessive as that the case appears to have arisen from a much later accident.
In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the award of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation made by the impugned award is sustained though it is payable on lumpsum basis in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satender (supra) and not on a criteria relied upon by the Tribunal.
During the pendency of the present proceedings, half of the decretal amount had been paid over to the claimant respondent while other half is lying stayed.
Considering the facts that at present the rate of interest awarded under the rules 7%, however, in view of the fact that this is an old case when higher rate of interest was also operating, let balance amount of compensation be deposited by the appellant before the Tribunal at 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.
Accordingly, it is provided that the appellant shall now deposit remaining half of the awarded amount together with 9% interest within a period of three months from today before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall proceed to release that amount only to the bonafide and genuine claimant or person claiming thereunder.
In the event, for any reason, the amount cannot be released in favour of the claimants for a period of more than three months from the date of deposit being made by the appellant, the same shall be retained in an interest bearing term deposit with an Nationalized Bank for such period as it may be necessary for the Tribunal to hold that money.
The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 16.8.2017
Mini
