The Tribunal is duty-bound to protect the interest of the dependents of the deceased and to ensure that the compensation amount is invested in a safe and secure manner.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - COMPENSATION - SECTION 110-B - AWARD OF COMPENSATION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 110-B - DUTY OF TRIBUNAL TO PROTECT INTEREST OF DEPENDENTS - GUIDELINES FOR INVESTMENT OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT.
Fact of the Case:

Deceased Jagannath died in a motor accident due to the negligence of the truck driver. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 40,500/- to the mother of the deceased, after deducting 25% for contributory negligence. The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company appealed against the quantum of compensation.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and reduced it to Rs. 32,000/-. The court also directed the Tribunal to consider the case of the claimant in the light of the relevant rules and guidelines and pass an appropriate order regarding investment of the compensation amount and payment of Court-fees.
Issues: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive? 2. Whether the Tribunal was duty-bound to protect the interest of the dependents of the deceased?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive, as it failed to take into account the fact that the deceased was partly responsible for the accident and that his income would have decreased after marriage. 2. The court held that the Tribunal was duty-bound to protect the interest of the dependents of the deceased and to ensure that the compensation amount was invested in a safe and secure manner.
Final Decision: The court reduced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 32,000/- and directed the Tribunal to consider the case of the claimant in the light of the relevant rules and guidelines and pass an appropriate order regarding investment of the compensation amount and payment of Court-fees.

JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---This is an appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangli dated 12th of December, 1979. It is not disputed that deceased Jagannath died in a motor accident, which took place on 17th of October, 1979 on the National Highway known as Bangalore Pune Road. It appears that the deceased Jagannath was sleeping on the road and the motor truck owned by the appellant No. 1 was coming from Kolhapur side and was proceeding to Pune on 17th October, 1978. Therefore, it is also not disputed that to some extent the negligence of the deceased in sleeping on the road was responsible for the accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals has assessed contributory negligence of deceased Jagannath to the extent of twenty five percent. The learned Member of the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was driving his vehicle negligently as well as rashly and because of his rashness he could not control the vehicle and therefore the accident took place. This finding is also not challenged in this appeal. What is challenged in the appeal is only the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. Deceased Jagannath was studying in S.Y.B.A. class at the time of his death. He was also getting a scholarship of Rs. 1200/- per annum. He was also conducting coaching classes. The learned Member of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the income of deceased Jagannath at the time of his death was round-about Rs. 200/- per month and being a student he was handing over his income to his mother. So far as future income of Jagannath is concerned, learned Member found that he would have normally earned Rs. 400/- to 500/- per month by serving in some Government Department or elsewhere and would have given at least Rs. 200/- per month to his mother. Mother of the deceased was 55 years old and therefore she would have received income from her deceased son for at least about 20 years. Therefore learned Member assessed damages at Rs. 48,000/-. To this an amount of Rs. 6000/- was added being amount of general damages. The learned Member deducted 25 percent from this amount towards contributory negligence of deceased Jagannath and ultimately passed an award of Rs. 40,500/-. It is this award which is challenged in this appeal by the appellants. Shri Chaphekar, learned Counsel for the appellants contended before us that deceased Jagannath could have contributed Rs. 200/- per month to his family for the first seven years, but thereafter he could not have continued to do so because in all probabilities he would have married. In that case it is difficult to hold that he would have continued to contribute Rs. 200/- per month. Learned Member should have held that after marriage Jagannath could have contributed Rs. 150/- only towards family expenditure. The mother of the deceased was 55 years old at the material time and therefore even after taking into consideration estimated increase in the average longevity of life she would have received this amount for another 15 years only. Therefore, according to Shri Chaphekar, even if the findings recorded by the trial Court are accepted, then also total compensation cannot exceed Rs. 32,000/-. It was not possible for the learned Counsel for the respondent to dispute this position. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for both sides, we have gone through the material evidence on record. After taking into consideration the net annual income of the deceased by dint of his labour, manual or of the head and heart the amount he would have spent for himself and for his dependants, and the expectancy of life span of his dependent mother, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the compensation in the present case cannot exceed Rs. 32,000/-. Hence the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified and is substituted b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document