1991 Supreme(Raj) 859
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
D.L.Mehta, J.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Kiran Lata And Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 83 of 1988.
Decided On : 23-09-1991
For the Appellants:Mr. R.R.L. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. S.C. Srivastava and Mr. Sanjay Tyagi, Advocates.
The multiplier method should be adopted for determining compensation in motor vehicle accident cases, taking into consideration the working expectancy period of the deceased and the present age.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Compensation - Claim for compensation for death and injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident - Tribunal's approach in holding that joint claim was filed by victims of same accident - Multiplier method for determining compensation - Factors to be considered - Quantum of compensation - Interest on compensation.
Fact of the Case:
A tractor driven by Gyan Singh was hit by a bus of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) resulting in the death of Gyan Singh and serious injuries to Man Singh. A claim petition was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal held that a joint claim by the legal representatives of the deceased and the injured person was not maintainable and awarded compensation of Rs. 92,000/- against the appellants and RSRTC.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tribunal's approach in holding that a joint claim was not maintainable was unwarranted. The court also held that the multiplier method should be adopted for determining compensation, taking into consideration the working expectancy period of the deceased and the present age. The court further held that the possibility of remarriage of the widow cannot be a ground for denying compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether a joint claim by the legal representatives of the deceased and the injured person is maintainable. 2. The appropriate method for determining compensation in motor vehicle accident cases. 3. Factors to be considered in determining the quantum of compensation. 4. Whether the possibility of remarriage of the widow can be a ground for denying compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the law does not prohibit the filing of a joint claim by persons who have suffered injuries or death in the course of the same accident. It observed that such a claim reduces the workload of the court and eliminates the need to produce evidence relating to the accident and negligence of the driver in separate claims. 2. The court held that the multiplier method should be adopted for determining compensation in motor vehicle accident cases. It observed that this method takes into consideration the working expectancy period of the deceased and the present age, and provides a reasonable basis for calculating the loss of income suffered by the family of the deceased. 3. The court held that the following factors should be considered in determining the quantum of compensation: (i) the age of the deceased; (ii) the income of the deceased; (iii) the number of dependents of the deceased; (iv) the uncertainties of life; and (v) the lump sum payment to be made. 4. The court held that the possibility of remarriage of the widow cannot be a ground for denying compensation. It observed that such an argument is violative of public policy and the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Succession Act, which recognize the right of widows to remarry and to inherit the property of their deceased husbands.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the award of the Tribunal, and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,14,200/- to the wife and Rs. 45,840/- to the mother of the deceased, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application.
JUDGMENT
1. - There has been a rapid development of road transport during the past few years and much increase in the number of motor vehicles on the road. The incidence of road accidents by motor vehicles has reached a serious proportion. It is said that the number of fatal accidents has been around 55,000 per year. The victims of these accidents are generally pedestrians belonging to less affluent sections of the society. The provisions of the Act as to compensation in respect of the accidents can be availed of only in cases of accidents which may be proved to have taken place as a result of wrongful act or negligence on the part of the owners or the driver of the vehicle concerned. Sometimes it is very difficult to secure adequate evidence or identity of the vehicle. It is well known that, generally, hit and run is the attitude of the drivers and the identity of the vehicle involved in the accident is not known. For this very reason, a new Chapter VII - A for the payment of compensation in certain cases of accident without proof of fault or negligence was inserted in the Act of 1939 vide Amendment Act No. 47 of 1982.
2. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 could not serve the cause of the public and for this reason the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been enacted to serve the cause of the society. Thus, the legislation relating to the motor vehicles and compensation is the beneficial legislation enacted by the Parliament for the benefit of the pedestrians, passengers and other victims of the accident. This directs the court to interpret the beneficial legislation in favour of the victims of the accident.
3. This appeal is directed against the award dated 16.1.1988 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sawaimadho - pur, camp Gangapur City, by which the Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 92,000/ - against the appellants and respondent No. 4, Raman Lai. Further directions were given that the respondent No. 4 and the present appellant will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 28th October, 1979, Gyan Singh and Man Singh were going in tractor No. RJD 8476 from Mahuwa towards Pachena. At about 8 a.m. while they were crossing the river Gambhiri, bus No. RSR 6314 came from the back side and dashed against tractor No. RJD 8476 resulting in the death of Gyan Singh and serious injuries to Man Singh. The claim petition was submitted and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - was claimed on account of the injuries sustained by Man Singh and a sum of Rs. 2,10,500/ - was claimed on account of the death of Gyan Singh. A total claim of Rs. 4,10,500/ - was submitted before the Tribunal.
5. On behalf of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, as usual, a written statement was submitted and the factum of accident was also denied. It was stated that the accident has not taken place and the vehicle No. RSR 6314 has not dashed against the tractor as stated by the petitioner.
6. On behalf of the respondents, preliminary objection was taken that joint claim by the legal representatives of the deceased Gyan Singh and injured Man Singh cannot be filed. This preliminary objection was raised before the Tribunal and the Tribunal also held that the joint claim is not maintainable. This compelled Man Singh to withdraw his claim to avoid the plea of limitation which could be raised against other family members, namely, the legal representatives of deceased Gyan Singh.
7. This type of technical attitude of the court is resulting in injustice to the needy and, in fact, the law which is to be applied for the benefit of the poor victims is not applied in a way which was enacted by the Parliament. There is a need that the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the State should take note of such decisions and he should organise the training camps and reorientation courses for giving some training to the judicial officers who have to deal with such cases immediately after their promotion from Chief Judicial Magistrate or Additional D
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
