Back
1993 Supreme(Gau) 146
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
U. L. BHAT, C.J. AND S. BARMAN ROY, JJ.
Jhulan Rani Saha -Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Company and others -Respondent
A. F. O. O. No. 55 of 1991
Decided On : 15-06-1993
B. Das and S. Dutta, D. K. Biswas
Heirs of a deceased person are not entitled to any compensation for pain or mental agony suffered by them on account of the death of their near one.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - QUANTUM - ENHANCEMENT - PRINCIPLES - MENTAL SHOCK, AGONY, PAIN OR SUFFERING - CLAIM BY HEIRS - NOT PERMISSIBLE - NERVOUS SHOCK - DISTINCTION - COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING UNDERGONE BY DECEASED - INSTANTANEOUS DEATH - NOT ADMISSIBLE.
Fact of the Case:
Claimant filed an application under S. 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation for the death of her son in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,29,600/- as compensation. Claimant appealed, contending that the quantum of compensation should be enhanced.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that there was no justification to enhance the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Court found that the Tribunal had correctly estimated the income and contribution of the deceased, and that the multiplier adopted was not excessive. The Court also held that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation for mental shock, agony, pain or suffering caused by the death of her son, as such damages are not recoverable under the law.
Issues: 1. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was justified? 2. Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation for mental shock, agony, pain or suffering caused by the death of her son?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Tribunal had correctly estimated the income and contribution of the deceased, and that the multiplier adopted was not excessive. The Court also held that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation for mental shock, agony, pain or suffering caused by the death of her son, as such damages are not recoverable under the law. 2. The Court held that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation for mental shock, agony, pain or suffering caused by the death of her son, as such damages are not recoverable under the law. The Court distinguished between mental shock and nervous shock, and held that only nervous shock, which is a psychiatric illness caused by witnessing an accident, is compensable.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal.
BHAT, C. J. :- Claimant in T. S. (MACT) 28/89 on the file of Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, District Agartala, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed the appeal.
2. The claimant, mother of Prabash Saha, filed the application under S. 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the Act) claiming Rs. 9,14,000/- as compensation for the death of her son in a motor vehicle accident involving stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No. TRS 209 at 12 noon on 14-7-1986 near the bus stand in the Airport Road, Agartala on the allegation that the vehicle driven at an excessive speed and rash and negligent manner knocked him down and the front left wheel of the vehicle ran over and killed him instantaneously. The claim was opposed by the insurer of the vehicle. Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,29,600/- (less Rs. 15,000/- already paid) as compensation and directed the insurer to pay the amount with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of application. MA (F) No. 39/1991 filed by the insurer has been dismissed.
3. The only question arising for consideration in the appeal is whether there is any justification to enhance the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal ?
4. In her application claimant stated that her son Prabash Saha (aged 22 years) had a grocery shop which fetched an income of Rs. 1,500/- per month, that he was contributing Rs. 1300/- per month to the family of five members, that he could have in future earned and contributed much more and that he would have so contributed for forty-eight years (seventy minus twenty-two). She claimed Rs. 8,64,000/-, being the amount of loss of contribution at the rate of Rs. 1300/- per month for 48 years. She also claimed Rs. 50,000/- for mental pain and agony suffered by her. Her estimate of Rs. 1300/- per month was of contribution for the mother aged 45 years, father 55 years, two brothers aged 15 and 12 years and two sisters aged 4 and 3 years of the deceased. Tribunal estimated the income at Rs. 1000/- per month, contribution to the members of the family at Rs. 800/- per month and life expectancy of the claimant as 60 years, fixed multiplier of fifteen, deducted 10% on account of lump sum payment and fixed compensation at Rs. 1,29,600/-.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that twenty should have been adopted as multiplier. In response to our request to learned counsel for insurer to assist the Court, learned counsel stated that only the mother is the heir and not the father, brothers or sisters and therefore amount of contribution fixed is excessive, that evidence does not justify the estimate of income at Rs. 1000/- per month, that the multiplier adopted and compensation awarded are excessive and hence there is no justification to enhance the quantum of compensation.
6. In Muhini Thakuria and others v. Dhiraj Kalita and others, (MA (F) No. 10/90, dt/- 8-6-1993) this Court has held that on the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident, claim for compensation under S. 110A of the Act can be made only by or on behalf of legal representatives of the deceased, that such legal representatives are entitled to compensation and that compensation cannot be claimed by or on behalf of other members of the family who are not heirs of the deceased even if they were looking to him for financial support and the Tribunal would not be justified in quantifying compensation on the basis of contribution to members of the family of the deceased who were not his heirs.
7. There is only the evidence of claimant examined as PW 1 that the sons income was Rs. 1500/- per month. She did not disclose the source of her knowledge. Having regard to the fact that the grocery shop was situated in a village, it cannot be said that income of Rs. 1000/- per month estimated by the Tribunal is too low. PW 1 deposed that her husband had no income. She did not explain why he had no income. She did not state that he was too sick t
