B.Shanker and Anoth Vs. Apsrtcadministrative Office Rtc Cross - Court Judgment

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.424 of 2011 16-12-2013 B.Shanker and another ...Appellants APSRTC Administrative Office RTC Cross Roads, Musheerabad Hyderabad and another....Respondents Counsel for the Appellants:Smt.A.Chayadevi Counsel for respondents: None appeared HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred:

1. 2010 ACJ page 99 2) 1965(1) All.E.R-563 3) 1963(2) All.E.R.432 4) 1969(1) All.E.R.555 5) 1995 ACJ366SC) 6) 2010 ACJ page 99 7) (2005) 6 SCC2368) 2009 ACJ12989) 2013(4) ALT35SC) HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.424 OF2011JUDGMENT

: The Claimants, parents of deceased by name Master B.Chanti, filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge-FAC X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.2561 of 2006 dated 29.01.2009, awarding compensation of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand only) as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh only), against respondent Nos.1 and 2 viz., APSRTC (for short 'Corporation') for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short, 'the Act').

2. Heard Smt. A. Chaya Devi, learned counsel for the appellants. Both the respondents, who were served with notice are called absent with no representation and thus taken as heard for their absence to decide on merits and perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal erred in arriving a wrong conclusion on the quantum of compensation and awarded a very meager amount instead of awarding as claimed and prayed for and hence to allow the appeal by enhancing and awarding full compensation as prayed for of Rs.3,00,000/- under several heads including loss of future dependency, love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses etc., by relied upon a decision reported in Manjudevi Vs.Musafir paswan1 of Delhi High Court. 4).Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest?.

2. To what result?. POINT-1:

5. The facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 29.10.2006 due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the crime vehicle (APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP10 3080) that belongs to the respondent, the same hit the deceased boy by name B.Chanti, S/o B.Shankar, aged 7 years, while crossing the road, as a result he fell down and the bus ran over him and he died on the spot, which occurrence is covered by Ex.A.1 First Information Report in Cr.No.96 of 2006 under Section 304-A IPC and Ex.A.4 charge sheet. The Tribunal from the oral and documentary evidence on record awarded compensation in all of Rs.65,000/- against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly, to be entitled by the claimants.

6. Before coming to decide, what is just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, It is apt to state that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or frame that has been battered and shattered, nor relieve from a pain suffered as stated by Lord Morris. In Ward v. James2, it was observed by Lord Denning that award of damages in personal injury cases is basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in comparable cases. Thus, in a case involving loss of limb or its permanent inability or impairment, it is difficult to say with precise certainty as to what composition would be adequate to sufferer. The reason is that the loss of a human limb or its permanent impairment cannot be measured or converted in terms of money. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal representatives due to sudden demise. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule in measuring the value of human life or limb or sufferance and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at, by precise mathematical calculation, but amount recoverable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Upjohn LJ in Charle red House Credit v. Tolly3 remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry v. Cleaver4 observed that to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult without some guess work but no other process can be devised than that of making a monitory assessment though it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. The Apex Court in R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited5 at paragraph No.12 held that in its very nature whatever a Tribunal or a Court is to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standard. Thus, in most of the cases involving Motor Accidents, by looking at the totality of the circumstances, an inference may have to be drawn and a guess work has to be made even regarding compensation in case of death, for loss of dependent and estate to all claimants; care, guidance, love and affection especially of the minor children, consortium to the spouse, expenditure incurred in transport and funerals etc., and in case of injured from the nature of injuries, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings particularly for any disability and also probable expenditure that has to be incurred from nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment required. The appeal claim herein is thus confined to the quantum from the contention of not correctly taken the multiplicand and multiplier with future prospects in earnings and on the quantum of consortium and funeral expenses etc., in arriving a sum for awarding just compensation.

7. From the above legal principles and in the factual matrix of case, there is no contest by the APSRTC-respondents despite served. The very claim petition itself mentioned that the claimants are entitled besides no fault liability of Rs.50,000/- additional sums i.e. also reproduced in para-8(i) at page 4 of the award by the Tribunal, out of compensation claimed by the parents- claimants of the deceased boy of seven years, their claim on other heads is Rs.7,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate but the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- only under the above heads and what the Tribunal arrived in all is of Rs.65,000/-. To attack the award of the Tribunal, the decision of Delhi High Court in Manjudevi Vs.Musafir paswan6 placed reliance has no relevancy on facts but for to say the quantum is low from the facts that when the child in the womb is also a juristic person under law entitled to no fault liability sum of Rs.50,000/- under the Act, as the minimum of compensation amount to be awarded. Thus by taking consideration of the fact that for a child below ten years is with uncertainty with life and even there is some guess work is necessary to be done to arrive compensation. Keeping in mind the parents lost the future breadwinner besides love and affection, for 7 years child with Rs.20,000/- per year proportionate increase to the minimum of Rs.50,000/- is just thereby the total compensation of Rs.50,000/-+ Rs.1,40,000/-+Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and transport charges and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and in all Rs. 2,05,000/- is just compensation against the respondents.

8. Coming to the rate of interest at 7%p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, from the settled proposition of law TN Transport Corporation v. Raja Priya7, Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation8 and from the latest expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh9 (supra), interest is awarded by modifying 7%p.a. to 71/2%p.a. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered. POINT -2:

9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the Award of the Tribunal on quantum of compensation by enhancing the same from Rs.65,000/- to Rs.2,05,000/-(Rupees two lakh five thousand only) with interest at 71/2% p.a. from date of the claim petition till realization/deposit with notice. Respondents, who jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, are directed to deposit within one month said amount with interest from the date of petition (after deduction of any amount paid so far pursuant to the award of the Tribunal), failing which the claimants can execute and recover. On such deposit or execution and recovery, Claimants are permitted to withdraw the same. There is no order as to costs. ________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO, J Date:

16. 12-2013