Madan Lal And Others vs Janardan And Others
1995 Latest Caselaw 520 Del

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is directed against the award dated April 28, 1980 passed by Shri R.C. Chopra, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi.

2. The appellants had filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for grant of compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of death of their mother Smt. Bharawan Bhai. The deceased, it is stated, was in the act of crossing the road on May 13, 1972 at about 8.45 p.m. at the crossing of Safdarjung Hosptial, New Delhi, when truck bearing No. DLL-5861 came from the side of Vinay Nagar at a fast speed and without giving any horn knocked down the deceased. The driver of the truck could not control his truck at the relevant time and could not apply brakes as it was going at an excessive speed. It was further alleged that the said vehicle had come from Vinay Nagar side in spite of red light and, therefore, the driver was rash and negligent. The deceased died at the spot as a result of the injuries. The driver of the truck, respondent No. 1, was in the employment of respondent No. 2 who was the owner. Respondent No. 3 was the insurer of the said truck and, therefore, they were all liable to pay compensation.

3. The appellants are the children of the deceased but appellants 4 to 7 were married before the accident and appellant No. 3 got married later on. The appellants claimed compensation on account of loss of service of the deceased and also for the loss of earnings of the deceased which she was having from doing tailoring work.

4. The respondents filed their written statements and denied their liability as it was contended that the accident took place due to the fault of the deceased herself. The factum of accident was not denied and it was also admitted that respondent No. 1 was the driver, respondent No. 2 was the owner and respondent No. 3 was the insurer of the offending truck. The Insurance Company, respondent No. 3 herein filed its written statement and admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the company.

5. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties:

1. Whether Shrimati Bharawan Bhai sustained fatal injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck No. DLL8565 on the part of the respondent No. 1, as alleged?

2. Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased?

3. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled and from whom?

4. Relief.

6. The Tribunal disposed of issue No. 1 by holding that the accident did not take place due to any fault on the part of the deceased who sustained fatal injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of offending truck on the part of respondent No. 1. The appellants were held to be the legal representatives of the deceased and issue No. 2 was decided accordingly. The learned Judge then considered the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the appellants and assessed the value of the service of the deceased at Rs. 200/- per month. He further made deduction of Rs. 100/- as expenses which the deceased was expected to spend on herself in case she had remained alive. The loss of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 100/- per month and by using a multiplier of 10 the total amount of damages as a result of 'death of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 12,000/- only. The deduction at the rate of 10% was made on account of contingencies of life and lump sum payment and the amount was further reduced to Rs. 10,800/-.

7. The Tribunal then adopted a very unusual formula and granted further split of the amount in favour of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 inasmuch as at the time of accident the said appellants were aged 14 and 24 years respectively and the compensation was awarded on the basis of the services of the deceased towards these two children in the region of Rs. 4,800/- and Rs. 6,000/- respectively.

8. The Tribunal has taken note of f he fact that no amount of money can console the children whose mother has been snatched away by the wheels of a vehicle because of negligence and rashness of irresponsible driver. The Courts can, however, make up for the tragic loss to some extent by awarding just, fair and reasonable compensation so that the loss of life becomes less painful. The deceased was contributing for the upkeep and bringing up of a large family and it is stated in the claim petition that she was also doing tailoring work at her residence and was having monthly income of Rs. 200/- per month. The facts of the case indicate that the deceased was 50 years of age at the time of accident and the reasonable expectancy of life cannot be assessed less than 60-65 years even at that point of time. The assessment of dependency of the housewife who was also having some income from her part-time work of tailoring is not easily assessable. However, it can be said that the amount of Rs. 200/- per month i.e. Rs. 2,400/- per year for the contribution of the deceased to the family is rather on the lower side and the dependency could easily be assessed at an approximate figure of Rs. 5,000/- per annum. The deceased was looking after a large family and also contributing her services for the upbringing of the family and in this manner the notional income for compensation can he taken into consideration for those housewives who had no income prior to the accident. Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the claim of the appellants for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is unreasonable and exaggerated. The same is, accordingly, allowed. The compensation which is now held payable to the appellant-claimants is assessed at Rs.50,000/-. The appellants shall also be entitled to interest at rate of 15 per cent, per annum from the date of application before the Tribunal till realisation. The appeal, as a consequence, is allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 2,500/-.

9. Appeal allowed.