Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.K.SOMASEKHARA
Amati Hymavathi - Appellant
Versus
Nissankararao Srikrishnamurthy - Respondent
Decided On : 01-21-98
Constitution of India - Article 141 - Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 - Section 1,A - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140 , 141 , 168 , 166 , 165 and 135 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 92,A , 92,D and 110,B - child death compensation - Court are dealing with fate of survivors on fete of dead - Claim petitions are filed for compensation for death of children - There cannot be any difference in result of death as every mortal will meet life with death - Therefore, in law and experience, result of death is similar - consequences of death are also on survivors to suffer separation or sadness is also not different - But degree of agony and loss of consequences may vary in certain situations - Therefore, to that extent, death claim cases involving death of children may not be different from other claim cases of death - But, in law and facts and experience, differentiation has a role to play for Courts or Tribunals to decide properly and in accordance with law and to achieve ultimate justice which is popularly called Human law and Human justice - This is back drop of theme of judgment which concerns Court to deal with matters with all seriousness and concern - There is no restitutio in integrum to award compensation for death of a child or anybody in money value as it is difficult to reimburse life - However, Law of Torts evolved a legal fiction that such loss of life can be compensated in money value, because "to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment – Held , This appeal is directed against award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur in MVOP - Appellants are claimants and parents of deceased Venkateswarlu who died in accident - Claim was laid for Rs - 38,500 - 00, but Tribunal passed award for Rs - 25,000 - 00 - Deceased was found to be aged six years at relevant time - PW1 mother of deceased boy and claimant No - 1 deposed that deceased was only son and only issue - Tribunal discussed evidence in regard to quantum of compensation of award - Rs - 25,000 00 was fixed taking into consideration of law in relation to no fault liability both - Beyond that there is not much discussion in regard to quantum as to how it was arrived - Normally speaking, with age of such a child, without any other circumstance to know future prospects, minimum compensation should be Rs - 15,000 - 00, when added Rs - 5,000 - 00 for pain and suffering - Rs - 3,000 - 00 towards incidental expenses and Rs - 6,000 - 00 towards investment made on him to bring him up etc - Total would go up to Rs - 29,000 - 00 - only distinguishing factor of normal case as against this case is that deceased was only issue to claimants - In other words, they were to wholly depend upon deceased boy both for pleasures and pains and for monetary assistance - age of claimants are 45 and 55 respectively which learned advocate says may not be age for procreation normally - Therefore, added a sum of Rs - 6,000 - 00 for such a contingency, compensation in this case would go up to Rs - 35,000 - 00 - award deserves to be modified accordingly – Appeal allowed
( 1 ) THESE cases can be styled as "child death compensation cases" involving common - questions of law and facts. They have been heard together and being disposed of with this common judgment. Apart from each case presenting-different considerations to assess the compensation, they involve a common simple but very important question, namely, how to assess the compensation in motor accident infant or child death cases. The plethora of precedents prevailing on the question have failed to provide consistency or the uniform guidelines for the Tribunals and the Courts to approach the matter with certainty or with absolute confidence. Therefore, in the nature of the arguments advanced by the learned advocates who are appearing in the batch of cases, namely, Sarvasri S. Hanumaiah, Prattipati Venkateswarlu, N. Subba Rao, M. Chandrasekhar Reddy, T. Bheemsen, K. Subba Rao, V. Tulasi Reddy, M. Ramaiah, C. Prabhakar Reddy, P. Sri Raghuram, O. Manohar Reddy, Y. V. Swamy, S. Prabhakr Reddy, S. V. R. Somayajulu, and A. T. M. Rangaramanujam and in view of certain complexities projecting from the situation to leave and finality of the views on the question or questions involved by removing certain doubts. Mr. Srinivasa Rao, the learned senior advocate has been prevailed upon to assist the Court as an amicus curias in addition to the valuable guidance given by the learned advocates for the petitioners. It is almost the four decades of the precedents and the comparable cases which are available to leave a background in deciding such a question.
( 2 ) WE arc dealing with the fate of the survivors on the fete of the dead. The claim petitions are filed for compensation for the death of children. There cannot be any difference in the result of death as every mortal will meet the life with death. Therefore, in law and experience, the result of death is similar. The consequences of death are also on the survivors to suffer the separation or the sadness is also not different. But the degree of agony and the loss of the consequences may vary in certain situations. Therefore, to that extent, the death claim cases involving the death of the children may not be different from other claim cases of death. But, in law and facts and experience, the differentiation has a role to play for the Courts or the Tribunals to decide properly and in accordance with law and to achieve the ultimate justice which is popularly called Human law and Human justice. This is the back drop of the theme of the judgment which concerns the Court to deal with the matters with all seriousness and concern. There is no restitutio in integrum to award the compensation for the death of a child or anybody in money value as it is difficult to reimburse the life. However, the Law of Torts evolved a legal fiction that such loss of life can be compensated in money value, because "to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment. " (See page 2 of damages for Personal Injuries and Death by John Munkman, Seventh Edition, 1985, London, Butterworths ).
( 3 ) TECHNICALLY speaking, the law of compensation or damages has a root in the Law of Torts. Atleast in India, there was no statutory basis to assess the compensation in such claims for the negligence of others till the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was enacted to come on the Statute Book on 27th March, 1855 (Act 13 of 1855 ). Therefore, the first law was born almost one and half centuries ago in relation to awarding of compensation in fatal accident cases. The next condification of law relating to awarding compensation for motor vehicle accidents is the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. 4 of 1939) which came into force on 16/02/1939 and the latest one is the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act No. LIX of 1988), which came into force on 1-7-1989. The 1988 Act has also undergone amendment by the Motor Vehicles (Ame
PUSHINDER KAUR SEKHON V. CORPORAL SHARMA
BIHAR CO.OP. MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE SOCIETY V. RAMESHWAR RAUT
BIMLA DEVI V. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
RUPINDER SINGH V. JASWANT SINGH
HARMINDER SINGH V. SUKHPINDER SINGH
P.C.Kakar Vs Commandant, Military Hospital, Trimalgiri
A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad Vs T.Yasodha
New India Assurance Co., Ltd. rep. by its Divisional Manager, Nizamabad Vs Devula Ramulu
Depot Manager, APSRTC, Sathupalli Depot Vs Alvala Krishna Mrunalini
Thulluri Ruthomma Vs S.Bala Kotaiah
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Ananthapur, rep.by its Manager Vs Kothakatta Ramanna
Gajulavarthi Sugunamma Vs Vallabhaneni Koteswararao
Mogili Venkateswarlu Vs Miriyala Balaramaiah
K.Ramalingam Vs Gummalla Kalavati
Ullanki Kanaka Durgamma Vs Dantuluri Suryanarayana
K.Lingavva Vs Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad
R.Balanarasamma Vs K.Ramakrishna Reddy
Pushpihder Kaur Sekhon vs. Corporal Sharma
Harminder Singh vs. Sukhpinder Singh
Rupinder Singh vs. Jaswant Singh
Bimla Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Bihar Co op. Motor Vehicles Insurance Society vs.Rameshwar Raut
A.P.S.ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GENERAL MANAGER, MUSIRABAD, HYDERABAD Vs ANNAPUREDDY GURAVA REDDI
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs G.Ramanaiah
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anga Chinnababu
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Ananthapur, rep.by its Manager Vs Kothakatta Ramanna
Gajulavarthi Sugunamma Vs Vallabhaneni Koteswararao
Mogili Venkateswarlu Vs Miriyala Balaramaiah
K.Ramalingam Vs Gummalla Kalavati
Ullanki Kanaka Durgamma Vs Dantuluri Suryanarayana
K.Lingavva Vs Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad
R.Balanarasamma Vs K.Ramakrishna Reddy
P.C.Kakar Vs Commandant, Military Hospital, Trimalgiri
A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad Vs T.Yasodha
Konala Syamala Vs Collector and District Magistrate, E.G.District, Kakinada
Thulluri Ruthomma Vs S.Bala Kotaiah
Depot Manager, APSRTC, Sathupalli Depot Vs Alvala Krishna Mrunalini
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.