Back
1993 Supreme(Gau) 202
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
U. L. BHAT, C. J. AND Smt. M. SHARMA, JJ.
State of Tripura -Appellant
Versus
Tapan Kumar Dhar and another -Respondent
M.A. (F) No. 170 of 1989
Decided On : 13-08-1993
A. Chakraborty, A. G., B. Das, A. Bhattacharjee
Compensation in fatal accident cases under the Fatal Accident Act, 1855, should be awarded under two heads: (1) loss to the estate, and (2) loss to the dependents. The court should also consider various imponderable factors that may affect the amount of compensation, such as uncertainties of life, accelerated payment, and the possibility of the deceased not being able to earn till retirement.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'FATAL ACCIDENT ACT', 'SUBJECT': 'COMPENSATION FOR DEATH IN MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['FATAL ACCIDENT ACT, 1855', 'SECTION 1A', 'SECTION 2'], 'SUMMARY': "The court discussed the principles for determining compensation in fatal accident cases under the Fatal Accident Act, 1855. It held that compensation should be awarded under two heads: (1) loss to the estate, and (2) loss to the dependents. The court also considered various imponderable factors that may affect the amount of compensation, such as uncertainties of life, accelerated payment, and the possibility of the deceased not being able to earn till retirement. The court awarded compensation to the husband and son of the deceased, taking into account the deceased's income, her contribution to the household expenses, and the loss of her services."}
Fact of the Case:
Aparajita Majumdar, a 34-year-old U.D. Assistant in the State Government, was killed in a motor vehicle accident. Her husband and 3-year-old son filed a petition before the M.A.C. Tribunal claiming Rs. 4 lakhs as compensation from the driver of the lorry and the State. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- including Rs. 15,000/- paid as interim compensation, with interest of 6 per cent per annum. The State appealed against the quantum of compensation awarded.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tribunal did not follow any legal principle in determining the compensation and that the same was extravagantly excessive. The court also held that the Tribunal did not advert to the two major heads of claim permitted under the law and did not indicate whether it was assessing compensation under one head or both the heads.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal followed any legal principle in determining the compensation? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was extravagantly excessive? 3. Whether the Tribunal adverted to the two major heads of claim permitted under the law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Tribunal did not follow any legal principle in determining the compensation. The court referred to the principles laid down in the Fatal Accident Act, 1855, and held that compensation should be awarded under two heads: (1) loss to the estate, and (2) loss to the dependents. The court also considered various imponderable factors that may affect the amount of compensation, such as uncertainties of life, accelerated payment, and the possibility of the deceased not being able to earn till retirement. 2. The court held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was extravagantly excessive. The court noted that the Tribunal had not taken into account the fact that both spouses were working and earning, and that the deceased's contribution to the household expenses was likely to have been less than that of her husband. The court also noted that the Tribunal had not considered the possibility of the deceased not being able to earn till retirement due to illness or other factors. 3. The court held that the Tribunal did not advert to the two major heads of claim permitted under the law. The court noted that the Tribunal had not indicated whether it was assessing compensation under one head or both the heads.
Final Decision: The court modified the award passed by the Tribunal and awarded a sum of Rs. 41,250/- to the first claimant and Rs. 76,250/- to the second claimant. The amount was to be paid with interest at 10 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till payment after deducting any amount which might have been deposited or paid towards no fault liability.
BHAT, C. J. :- Respondents are husband and son of Aparajita Majumdar, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 2-5-84. A Lorry, TRL 1823, belonging to the Government of Tripura was being used to carry a big ladder. The lorry was proceeding at an excessive speed. The ladder fell down from the lorry and hit Aparajita Majumdar, who was proceeding in a rickshaw. She sustained injuries and was removed to G.B. hospital where she died after about an hour. Her husband and minor son filed a petition before the M.A.C. Tribunal claiming Rs. 4 (four) lakhs as compensation from the driver of the lorry and the State. The claim was resisted. The Tribunal upheld the case of the claimants and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- including Rs. 15,000/- paid as interim compensation, with interest of 6 per cent per annum. The State, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, has filed this appeal.
2. Aparajita Majumdar was aged about 34 years at the time of the accident. Her husband was aged about 39 years The son was aged about 3 years at the time of the accident. The deceased was working as U.D. Assistant under the State Government and her total emolument was Rs. 1,039/- per month. Respondents contended that she would have been promoted as Head Clerk and thereafter Office Superintendent, Section Officer and Under Secretary to the Government. The claim was made for Rs. 4,00,000/-. Claim petition does not indicate how and on what basis this sum was arrived at. Tribunal, in the absence of the seniority list, was not inclined to accept the contention that she would have been successively promoted. Considering the scale of pay enjoyed by the deceased, Tribunal fixed her average income from her job from the date of accident till date of retirement at Rs. 1500/- per month. On the basis that she had 25 years of service left, Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that her total future income till retirement would be Rs. 4,50,000/- and the pension she would have drawn, at Rs. 920/- per month for a period of 7 years, would be Rs. 77,280/- and fixed the total loss of income on account of her death at Rs. 5,27,280/- deducting the amount necessary for her expenditure till date of retirement at Rs. 300/- per month. Net loss of income was estimated at Rs. 4,12,080/-. Deducting 20 per cent on account of lump sum payment, compensation was fixed at Rs. 3,00,000/-. According to the appellant, the Tribunal did not follow any legal principle in determining the compensation and the same is extravagantly excessive.
3. While determining just compensation in a case of fatal accident, Tribunal must have regard to the principles referred to in Ss. 1A and 2 of the Fatal Accident Act, and the law of Torts. In Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC l, the Supreme Court considered the principles underlying the provisions of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855. Section 1 contemplates damages recoverable for the benefit of persons mentioned therein in respect of loss sustained by them. Compensation u/S. 2 goes to the benefit of the estate, based on loss to the estate including loss of expectation of life. Beneficiaries under the two provisions may or may not be identical. Since the claims under the two provisions are based on different causes of actions, Supreme court indicated that prima facie claimants, whether same or different, would be entitled to recover compensation separately under both the heads. But where the claimants under both the heads synchronize in respect of a particular head or sub-head, damages cannot be awarded twice over. Compensation awarded under one head should be taken into account while estimating the compensation under any head under the other provision. Supreme Court illustrated this principle in paragraph 11 of the judgment taking X as the income of the deceased and Y as the yearly expenditure by him on his dependents and Z as his saving in the year. Capitalised value of the income spent on the dependants, i.e. Y subje
