Judgment:
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The appellants are the unfortunate parents who suffered an irreparable loss in the death of their young son - Dr. Vikrant Gupta. He was 23 years old and had just Graduated in Medicine and Surgery. He was undergoing internship. He met his end in a lorry accident. The death was instantaneous. The appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal has assessed and awarded a total amount of Rs. 2,70,000/-. The appellants complain that the compensation is too meagre. Hence this appeal.
The facts may be briefly noticed.
2. On the night intervening April 21-22,1995, Vikrant Gupta was travelling to Pondicherry in Lorry No. TCG-2400. Neary Chengalpattu, the Lorry hit a stationary Truck No. PY-01-0477 which was parked on the wrong side of the road without any light or indication. Vikrant Gupta sustained multiple injuries and died. His post-mortem was performed at the Medical College. Chcngalpattu. An FIR Ex.P.5 was also recorded.
3. The father of the deceased was at Chandigarh. He had retired as Professor and Head of the Department of Radiotherapy, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, in the year 1994. On April 22, 1995, he was to leave for Mangolia. His ticket was already booked. However, on receipt of the telegram, he had flown to Madras and then reached Chengalpattu. He got the body embalmed. It was carried to Delhi by air and then to Chandigarh in an ambulance. The last rites were performed at Chandigarh.
4. The deceased had a brilliant academic record. He had jointed the MBBS course at the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry in July 1990. This admission was granted to him as a result of the selection conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. He had completed the four and a half years' course and was doing internship from January 1995. During the period of internship, he was being paid a monthly stipend of Rs. 2000/-. The accident ended a promising career.
5. The deceased had other interests as well. He had passed the Grade-V examination in Classical Guitar from the London School of Music. He had ambitious plans of performing concerts apart from following the medical profession.
6. The appellants claim that the deceased had the potential of earning a minimum of Rs. 50,000/- per month. On this basis, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs alongwith 18% interest was claimed.
7. In the petition, the owners and drivers of the two vehicles and the insurers viz. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and the United India Insurance Company were impleaded as parties. The two companies appeared. Others did not Resultantly, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 were proceeded against ex parte.
8. In the written statement filed by the Oriental Insurance Company, it was averred that no cause of action had accrued. The first respondent was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident. She had no insurable interest and that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. On merits, the basic plea was that the claimants be put to proof. Similar was the reply filed on behalf of the United India Insurance Company - respondent No. 6.
9. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following three issues :-
(i) Whether the accident in question took place due tothe rash and negligent driving of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 OPP.
2. It issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to and from whom OPP,
3. Relief.
On issue No. 1, the Tribunal found that the accident had occurred 'due to rash and negligent acts of respondent Nos. 2 and 4'. On the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took the view that after completion of the internship, the salary of the deceased could be Rs. 3000/-. 1/3rd was deducted on account of personal expenses. Thus, taking the contribution at Rs. 2000/- per month, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 10 and assessed the compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/-. It allowed another amount of Rs. 20,000/- on account of transportation changes and Rs. 10,000/- for cremation. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 2,70,000/- was assessed and awarded.
10. Mr. Ashok Sharma, counsel for the appellants contends that the compensation as assessed by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and that a much higher compensation ought to have been awarded. On the other hand, M/s Suveer Dewan and Gopal Mittal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 - the insurers, have (though half-heartedly) contended that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is adequate.
11. The short question that arises for consideration is -1 las the Tribunal awarded a just and fair compensation to the claimants ?
12. Admittedly, the deceased had passed his MBBS examination. The certificate Ex.Pl clearly shows that he was doing his internship. It is also evident that he was 'a very good student and (had) passed all the examination in the first appearance itself. Even his past was good. He had got admission to the Jawaharlaf institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry, as a result of the All India competition conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. Still, further, he had also qualified the Grade V examination from the London School of Music.
13. Dr. B.D. Gupta - the father of the deceased appeared as PW1. He stated that his son had 'ambitious plans of performing concerts apart from devoting his time in the medical profession ...' He also stated that the deceased was to 'further pursue hisMD/MS course and was to rise high in life...' In cross-examination, the only suggestion made to the witness was that his son was not MBBS. Otherwise, nothing was suggested which may reflect adversely on the deceased.
14. It is evident that the deceased had a consistently good academic record. His selection and admission to a medical course is symbolic of his good academic attainments. Even if the testimony of the Dad is deemed to be tainted with some degree of interest (though there is nothing to suggest that), we have the unequivocal opinion of the Dean of the Institute. He has given apic-ture of the promise and the potential. The certificate is Ex.Pl. It shows that the deceased had not only passed all the examinations in the first attempt but also that 'if he were to survive, there was every probability that he could have secured admission for higher courses of study (like M.D., M.S., etc.) and qualified to have a good....income as a specialist medical practitioner.' This assessment by the Dean of the Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry bears clear testimony to the potential of the deceased. Apparently, he had a good past and was likely to have a bright future. He had the potential of being a source of comfort to his parents and an asset to the society.
15. It is true that in April 1995, the deceased was undergoing internship. He was getting a stipend of Rs. 2000/-. However, on graduation, he could have easily hoped to get a good Government job or to set up private practice. He could have also done post-graduation. In any of these situations, his income would not have been restricted to Rs. 3000/- per mensem as assessed by the Tribunal. In fact, it is the admitted position that even in the year 1995-96, Junior Residents who joined Post Graduate Institutes of Medical Education for higher studies were paid in the region of Rs. 120007- per month or more. Those vlio were selected for appointment to the State Medical Services, were paid even more. There were prospects of career advancement. Or. this basis, it appears that it would be unfair to fix the monthly income of the deceased at anything less than Rs. 12000/- per month. It could have been even more if he were to take up a job with the Government or to set up private practice. If 1/3rd of this amount is excluded as the personal expenses of the deceased, he could have easily spared Rs. 8000/- per month for his parents.
16. The Tribunal has noticed the fact that the deceased was 23 years old at the time of accident. Still, it has applied a multiplier of 10 on the hypothesis that the deceased could have got married after 10 years. Mr. Ashok Sharma contends that the Tribunal has erred in applying a multiplier of 10. He submits that a multiplier of 18 should be applied.
17. The cardinal principle that courts follow is that the damages have to be minimised. Yet, we cannot lose sight of the ground realities. It is indisputal le that life expectancy is increasing with years. Still further, even if the deceased had got married, he would have in the normal course of events continued to look after his parents had provided for them. At the lowest, he would have also been a source of help and solace to them. It is also the admitted position that at the time of the accident, the age of the appellant No. 1 was about 60 years while that of appellant No. 2 was less than 58 years. There is not even a suggestion that the appellants are not fit and healthy. Taking all these factors into consideration, we think it appropriate to apply a multiplier of 12.
18. In view of the above, it is held that the appellantssuffered a monetary loss of Rs. 96,000/- per year. With a multiplier of 12. the figure comes to Rs. 11,52,000/-. Still further, the first appellant in his statement as PW1 has categorically asserted that he had spent an amount of Rs. 80,000/- in transportation and Rs. 40,000/- on funeral and cremation etc. This part of the statement was not challenged in cross-examination. Normally, even this amount would have been payable to the appellants. However, we think mat a total compensation of Rs. 45,000/- on this account shall be just and reasonable.
19. No other point has been raised.
20. Whatever the amount of compensation that we might'assess and award, the loss that the appellants have suffered is irreparable. Nothing but time; can heal the wound. The sear (scar ?) shall remain till the last day of their lives. So far as this appeal is concerned, it is allowed in the above terms. The appellants are held entitled to an amount of Rs. 11,97,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing the claim petition as awarded by the Tribunal. Since both the vehicles have been held to be equally liable by the Tribunal and that finding has not been challenged, the liability of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 would be joint and several. The appellants shall be entitled to their costs.
21. Appeal allowed.