D.R. Deshmukh, J.
1. The following oral order of the court was passed by S.R. Nayak, C.J. In all these appeals, i.e., M.A. Nos. 730 731, 722, 728, 723 and 729 of 2006 preferred by insurance company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), the only question raised and argued is that though the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the appellant insurance company is under no legal obligation to pay compensation to the claimants, it has directed the insurance company to pay compensation in the first instance and then to recover the same from the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident.
2. In M.A. Nos. 731, 723 and 729 of 2006, the respondents-claimants have filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Rajesh Pandey, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company placing strong reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Diwakar : 2005(6)BomCR284 , would contend that the M.A.C.T. having held rightly that the insurance company is under no legal obligation to pay compensation on the ground that there was breach of conditions of policy on the part of the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, seriously erred in law in directing the insurance company to pay a compensation in the first instance to the claimants and then to recover the same from the owner of the motor vehicle.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants, placing reliance on judgments of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur : AIR2004SC1340 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma : (2004)8SCC517 ; Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma : (2005)12SCC243 , would submit that the direction issued by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the appellant insurance company to pay the compensation in the first instance and to recover the same from the owner is unexceptionable and is in accordance with the settled position in law.
5. Mrs. Meera Jaiswal, learned Counsel who appeared for the cross-objectors in M.A. Nos. 731, 723 and 729 of 2006 while praying for enhancement of compensation would submit that having regard to the place and time of the accident and the status of the deceased, the M.A.C.T. is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased at notional level for the purpose of computing loss of dependency. Learned Counsel would submit that under no circumstance the monthly income of the deceased should have been taken at a rate lesser than Rs. 3,000 per month for the purpose of computing loss of dependency. She would also submit that what has been awarded by the M.A.C.T. under conventional heads, such as, loss of consortium to the widow, loss to estate, loss of love and affection to the minor children of the deceased and funeral expenses is also on lower side.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the following two points arise for decision:
(i) Whether the M.A.C.T. has acted legally in directing the appellant insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimants in the first instance and then to recover the same from the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident?
(ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T. to the respondents-claimants in M.A. Nos. 731, 723 and 729 of 2006, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, could be regarded as just and reasonable compensation within the contemplation of the Act and if not, what is just and reasonable compensation?
Point No. (i):
This point need not detain the court for long because this point is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court. The settled position is that even in a case where the M.A.C.T. finds that the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident alone is under legal liability to pay compensation on account of breach of conditions of insurance policy, even then, it is open for the M.A.C.T. to direct the insurance company concerned to pay the compensation in the first instance and then to recover the same from the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident in an independent legal action like the suit or in the execution proceedings initiated to execute the award passed by the M.A.C.T. The judgment of Bombay High Court cited by Mr. Rajesh Pandey, learned Counsel for the insurance company, is of no help to the insurance company, because, that judgment, as we could see, does not refer to or consider the binding judgments of the Supreme Court.
Point No. (ii):
It is quite often held and reiterated by the courts that the compensation to be determined by the M.A.C.T. under the Act should be just and reasonable though no amount of compensation would really redress the suffering and agonies or loss sustained by the victims of accident whether it is a case of death or a case of injury. It is also well settled that while computing loss of dependency in the case of death, the court would have to take into account the time and place of the accident, and the standard to be applied cannot be static irrespective of time and place factors.
7. In the three cross-objections to which reference is made (supra), the deceased were in prime age group when they died in the accident. They left behind them young widows, children and parents. It is true that no concrete substantive evidence is laid by the claimants before the M.A.C.T. to substantiate that the deceased concerned was earning any particular sum of money as his monthly income. Simply because such evidence was not available before the M.A.C.T., it could not be said that the M.A.C.T. was justified in taking monthly income, in all the three aforesaid cases, at notional level of Rs. 15,000 per annum. The Apex Court and many High Courts, in recent times, have opined that even in the case of an ordinary housewife or unskilled manual labourer, Rs. 300 should be taken as monthly income for the purpose of computing loss of dependency. It is reasonable to infer that the deceased, in each of these cases, was earning/earned not less than Rs. 100 per day or Rs. 3,000 per month to have at least two square meals to themselves and their dependants and a shelter over their head. We say this keeping in mind the time and place of the accident. The accident took place only recently, i.e., in the year 2005. If we take the monthly income of the deceased in each of these cases at Rs. 3,000 per month and deduct one-third of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 3,12,000 in the case of cross-objectors in M.A. No. 731 of 2006; Rs. 4,32,000 in the case of cross-objectors in M.A. No. 723 of 2006; and Rs. 3,60,000 in the case of cross-objectors in M.A. No. 729 of 2006.
8. We are of the considered opinion, as opined in earlier several orders, that the compensation to be awarded under conventional heads should reflect time and place. In other words, compensation to be paid under conventional heads cannot be static for all times and for all places. It is because even conventional compensation is compensation and not a gratuitous payment nor a token payment. Taking into account the time and place of the accident and demise in these cases, we are of the considered opinion that what has been awarded under the conventional heads are on lower side. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 25,000 in each of these cases for 'loss of consortium' to the widows concerned, Rs. 25,000 towards 'loss to estate'. What has been awarded towards loss of love and affection is just and reasonable. There is no warrant for any further enhancement under the said head.
9. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we dismiss all these appeals filed by the insurance company.
Cross-objectors in M.A. No. 731 of 2006:
We allow cross-objections filed in M.A. No. 731 of 2006 in part and in substitution of the impugned award, we award total compensation of Rs. 3,69,000 under the following heads:
(i) Towards loss of
dependency
(24,000 13) Rs. 3,12,000
(ii) Towards loss of
consortium Rs. 25,000
(iii) Towards loss to
estate Rs. 25,000
(iv) Towards loss of
love and affection Rs. 5,000
(v) Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000
______________
Total Rs. 3,69,000
______________
Cross-objectors in M.A. No. 723 of 2006:
Similarly, we allow the cross-objections filed in M.A. No. 723 of 2006 in part and in substitution of the impugned award, we award total compensation of Rs. 5,04,000 under the following heads:
(i) Towards loss of
dependency Rs. 4,32,000
(24,000 x 18)
(ii) Towards loss of
consortium Rs. 25,000
(iii) Towards loss to
estate Rs. 25,000
(iv) Towards loss of
love and affection
to minor children
(respondent Nos.
2 to 5) Rs. 20,000
(v) Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000
______________
Total Rs. 5,04,000
______________
Cross-objectors in M.A. No. 729 of 2006:
We allow cross-objections in M.A. No. 729 in part and in substitution of impugned award, we award total compensation of Rs. 4,32,000 under the following heads:
(i) Towards loss of
dependency
(24,000 x 15) Rs. 3,60,000
(ii) Towards loss of
consortium Rs. 25,000
(iii) Towards loss to
estate Rs. 25,000
(iv) Towards loss of
love and affection
to minor children
(respondent Nos.
2 to 5) Rs. 20,000
(v) Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000
_____________
Total Rs. 4,32,000
_____________
In all these cases, we award interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till payment.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties in all these appeals and the cross-objections shall bear their respective costs. Insurance company shall deposit the balance of compensation before the M.A.C.T. within six weeks from today and on such deposit being made, the M.A.C.T. shall invest/disburse the same in the same proportions, if any, specified by it in the impugned awards.