Bhat, C.J.
1. Respondents are husband and son of Aparajita Majumdar, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 2-5-84. A Lorry, TRL 1823, belonging to the Government of Tripura was being used to carry a big ladder. The lorry was proceeding at an excessive speed. The ladder fell down from the lorry and hit Aparajita Majumdar, who was proceeding in a rickshaw. She sustained injuries and was removed to G.B. hospital where she died after about an hour. Her husband and minor son filed a petition before the M.A.C. Tribunal claiming Rs. 4 (four) lakhs as compensation from the driver of the lorry and the State. The claim was resisted. The Tribunal upheld the case of the claimants and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-including Rs. 15,000/- paid as interim compensation, with interest of 6 per cent per annum. The State, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, has filed this appeal.
2. Aparajita Majumdar was aged about 34 years at the time of the accident. Her husband was aged about 39 years The son was aged about 3 years at the time of the accident. The deceased was working as U.D. Assistant under the State Government and her total emolument was Rs. 1,039/- per month. Respondents contended that she would have been promoted as Head Clerk and thereafter Office Superintendent, Section Officer and Under Secretary to the Government. The claim was made for Rs. 4,00,000/-. Claim petition does not indicate how and on what basis this sum was arrived at. Tribunal, in the absence of the seniority list, was not inclined to accept the contention that she would have been successively promoted. Considering the scale of pay enjoyed by the deceased, Tribunal fixed her average income from her job from the date of accident till date of retirement at Rs. 1500/-per month. On the basis that she had 25 years of service left, Tribunal arrived at the
conclusion that her total future income till retirement would be Rs. 4,50,000/- and the pension she would have drawn, at Rs.920/-per month for a period of 7 years, would be Rs. 77,280/- and fixed the total loss of income on account of her death at Rs. 5,27,280/-deducting the amount necessary for her expenditure till date of retirement at Rs. 300/- per month. Net loss of income was estimated at Rs. 4,1,080/-. Deducting 20 per cent on account of lump sum payment, compensation was fixed at Rs. 3,00,000/-. According to the appellant, the Tribunal did not follow any legal principle in determining the compensation and the same is extravagantly excessive.
3. While determing just compensation in a case of fatal accident, Tribunal must have regard to the principles referred to in Ss. 1A and 2 of the Fatal Accident Act, and the law of Torts. In Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1, the Supreme Court considered the principles underlying the provisions of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855. Section 1 contemplates damages recoverable for the benefit of persons mentioned therein in respect of loss sustained by them. Compensation under Section 2 goes to the benefit of the estate, based on loss to the estate including loss of expectation of life. Beneficiaries under the two provisions may or may not be identical. Since the claims under the two provisions are based on different causes of actions, Supreme court indicated that prima facie claimants, whether same or different, would be entitled to recover compensation separately under both the heads. But where the claimants under both the heads synchronize in respect of a particular head or sub-head, damages cannot be awarded twice over. Compensation awarded under one head should be taken into account while estimating the compensation under any head under the other provision. Supreme Court illustrated this principle in paragraph 11 of the judgment taking 'X as the income of the deceased and 'Y' as the yearly expenditure by him on his dependents and 'Z' as his saving in the year. Capitalised value of the income spent on the dependants, i.e. 'Y' subject to relevant deductions, would be the pecuniary loss sustained
by the dependants. Capitalised value of the saving i.e. 'Z' subject to relevant deductions, would be loss caused to the estate. If the claimants under both the provisions are the same and got compensation for the entire loss caused to the estate, they cannot claim again under the head of personal loss the capitalised income that might have been spent on them. If they obtain compensation under Section 1, to that extent there should be deduction in their claim under Section 2, thereby avoiding duplication. These broad principles would be applicable to cases before M.A.C. Tribunal also.
4. These principles have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in C.K. Subramonia lyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 SC 376.
5. We may also refer to an observation of the Supreme Court in N. Sivammal v. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corpn., AIR 1985 SC 106 to the effect that the customary figure of compensation for loss to the estate would be Rs. 5000/-, evidently meaning loss of expectation of life and not economic loss. See also Manjushri Raha v. B. L. Gupta, AIR 1977 SC 1158. In Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Sudhakar, AIR 1977 SC 1189, the court dealt with the case of death of an employed wife, whose husband also was employed. In such a case, the Tribunal should proceed on the basis that both spouses contributed to the house-hold expenses, the exact compensation being dependant on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court stressed that uncertainties of life, accelerated payment, the possibility of the deceased not being able to earn till the date of retirement for some reason like illness or for having to spend more time to look after the family and other imponderable factors must be taken into consideration.
6. The claim petition does not indicate the basis on which compensation was claimed. It also does not state whether the deceased was contributing anything to the house-hold expenses or what proportion of her emoluments would be required for her own purposes and what proportion would be her savings. The Tribunal was not justified in reckoning her total emoluments for 25 years
together with total pension for 7 years and making a small deduction of 20 per cent for lump sum payment, for arriving at the just compensation. Admittedly both spouses were working and earning. It is quite probable that both of them were contributing to the family expenses though the contribution of wife could have been less than that of her husband. There was no evidence regarding the state of health of the deceased and other circumstances of the family to enable a conclusion to be drawn as to whether she would have continued to work till retirement. Tribunal did not advert to two major heads of claim permitted under the law and did not indicate whether it was assessing compensation under one head or both the heads. The Tribunal also did not advert to the various imponderable factors which might arise in a case like the present one. The Tribunal did not assess the contribution which the deceased could be expected to make either towards expenses of the husband or of the son. Tribunal also did not advert to the aspect whether she would have saved and accumulated a part of her income, which would have done to the husband and the son on her natural death. The award is not based on any recognised principle of law and is, therefore, not sustainable. An unfortunate tragedy is not expected to lead to wind-fall for the heirs.
7. It cannot be said that the husband would in any way be economically dependent on the wife, though the wife in the ordinary course of the nature, would have shared a part of the burden of the house-hold. The husband cannot claim any compensation on the basis of dependency. The 3 year-old son could be reasonably expected to be dependant partly on the mother for a period of 15 years. Monthly contribution in this regard could be expected to be Rs. 250/-. The annual contribution would be Rs. 3000/-. The contribution for 15 years would be Rs. 45,000/-, Deduction has to be made on account of uncertainties of life, accelerated payment in lump sum and the net compensation could be estimated to be Rs. 35,000/- on this account. Though it is not specifically alleged in the claim petition, it is reasonable to presume that the deceased would have spent a part of her time in
rendering service and looking after the husband and the child. Her death must be regarded as having deprived them of her services. On this account a conventional amount of Rs. 5000/ - to each of the claimants could be legitimately awarded.
8. Claimants, who are heirs of the deceased, could also claim compensation for loss to the estate. This would depend on what sum of money the deceased would be reasonably expected to save and what would be her accumulated savings during her service career of 24 or 25 years. We do not think, the pension amount should be reckoned since by that time her own needs would have increased on account of middle age, health problems and the like and it cannot be expected that she would be saving out of the pension. The deceased was in government service working as U.D. Assistant. She would have to maintain a standard of life consistent with her status as a career woman. Having regard to the totalities of circumstances and in the light of paucity of evidence, it would be reasonable to estimate that her average saving per year would be Rs. 5000/ - and for 25 years it would be Rs. 1,25,000/-. We have to take into consideration, at this stage, various imponderables such as, uncertainties of life, deterioration of heath leading to cut down of saving, possibility of her ceasing to work for variety of reasons, and deduct 50 per cent on account of these imponderables. Compensation payable to the estate for economic loss could be fixed at Rs.62,500/-. A sum of Rs.5000/-could also be awarded as compensation for pain and suffering undergone by her. A conventional sum of Rs. 5000/- could also be awarded to the estate for loss of expectation of life by the deceased on account of injuries.
9. Compensation could, therefore, be awarded as follows: 1) Loss of dependency to the minor son.
.
Rs. 35,000.00
2) Loss of services
.
Rs. 5,000.00
to each of the claimants.
3) Loss to the estate
.
Rs. 62,500.00
to both the claimants.
4) Compensation for pain and suffering by the
deceased
.
Rs. 5,000.00
to both the claimants.
5) Loss of enjoyment of life for the deceased.
.
Rs. 5,000.00
to both the claimants together 10. In the result, we modify the award passed by the Tribunal and award a sum of Rs.41,250/- to the first claimant and Rs.76,250/- to the second claimant. The amount shall be paid with interest at 10 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till payment after deducting any amount which might have been deposited or paid towards no fault liability.
The appeal is allowed in part to this extent.
S. Sharma, J.
11. I agree.