Back
1996 Supreme(Mad) 1106
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL HADI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation Ltd., through its Managing Director
Versus
Mohanammal & Others
C.M.A. No. 1475 of 1994
Decided On :Decided on : 01-11-1996
For the Appellant:P. Pandi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V. Raghavachari, Advocate.
Compensation under the heads of mental agony and loss of love and affection is not permissible, but compensation for pain and suffering undergone by the deceased till death, loss of consortium to the widow, and loss of love and affection to the children is permissible.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 166 - ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - QUANTUM - AWARD OF COMPENSATION UNDER HEADS OF MENTAL AGONY AND LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION - NOT PERMISSIBLE - AWARD OF COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING UNDERGONE BY DECEASED TILL DEATH - PERMISSIBLE - AWARD OF COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM TO WIDOW - PERMISSIBLE - AWARD OF COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION TO CHILDREN - PERMISSIBLE.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Ramachandran, was killed in a bus accident due to the negligence of the bus driver. The claimants, his widow and children, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,750/-. The Transport Corporation appealed against the award, challenging both negligence and quantum aspects.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the accident was caused solely due to the negligence of the bus driver. It also held that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month and that the multiplier of 10 years was appropriate. The court reduced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pecuniary loss, mental agony, and loss of love and affection. It also awarded compensation for pain and suffering undergone by the deceased till death and for loss of consortium to the widow.
Issues: 1. Whether the accident was caused due to the negligence of the bus driver? 2. Whether the deceased was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month? 3. Whether the award of compensation under the heads of mental agony and loss of love and affection was permissible? 4. Whether the award of compensation for pain and suffering undergone by the deceased till death was permissible? 5. Whether the award of compensation for loss of consortium to the widow was permissible? 6. Whether the award of compensation for loss of love and affection to the children was permissible?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the evidence of the eye-witness and the police investigation report to conclude that the accident was caused solely due to the negligence of the bus driver. 2. The court analyzed the income tax returns of the deceased and the evidence of his widow and brother to conclude that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. 3. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in New Majha Trans. Co. Society Ltd. v. Narinder Kaur to hold that no compensation can be awarded for mental agony suffered by the dependants. 4. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in G.M. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas to hold that compensation can be awarded for pain and suffering undergone by the deceased till death. 5. The court relied on the Allahabad High Court decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Hama Devi to hold that compensation can be awarded for loss of consortium to the widow. 6. The court relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur to hold that compensation can be awarded for loss of love and affection to the children.
Final Decision: The court modified the award of the Tribunal and fixed the compensation at Rs. 2,10,750/- with interest at 12% from the date of the petition. Out of this, the widow was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,10,750/- and the children were each entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/-.
SATHASIVAM, J.
1. Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation Limited, aggrieved against the award dated 21.2.1994 in M.C.O.P. No. 19 of 1993, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Sivaganga, respondent therein, has filed the present appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as Act)/challenging both negligence and quantum aspects.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal as alleged in the claim petition are briefly stated hereunder:—
The respondents herein who are the claimants before the court below filed the said petition for fixation of Rs. 20,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Act for the death of one Ramachandran. The first respondent herein is the widow. Respondents 2 and 3 are sons, the fourth respondent is the daughter and the fifth respondent is the mother of the deceased. According to the claimants, on 17.7.1992 when the deceased Ramachandran was travelling in a bus TN. 63 No. 0269, belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation from Sivaganga to Manamadurai at about 7.30 pm near Katturani Vilakku Road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus, the bus dashed against the roadside tamarind tree. Due to the said impact, the deceased Ramachandran sustained multiple injuries and he was immediately taken to Madurai where he was declared as dead. It is further averred by the claimants that the police after investigation charge-sheeted the driver of the transport bus. The deceased was aged about 45 years and was hale and healthy at the time of the accident. He was a Managing Director in many concerns and also owned 10 acres of wet land. Prior to the death he was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month both from the business as well as from the agriculture. Because of the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants have claimed a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation.
3. On the other hand, in the counter filed by the Transport Corporation it is contended that while taking a curve at the accident spot and in order to avert an accident with an uncontrollable travelling lorry which was proceeding from the opposite side, the driver took the bus to the right side. While doing so, since the deceased was protruding his head outside the bus in order to know what had happened, he sustained injuries. It was also contended that the accident was caused only due to the negligence and carelessness of the deceased. They also disputed the various factual details such as age, occupation income of the deceased etc.
4. The widow of the deceased was examined as P.W. 1. One Panjai who witnessed the occurrence was examined as P.W. 2. The brother of the deceased was examined as P.W. 3 and the Investigation Officer was examined as P.W. 4. They also marked Exs. A-1 to A-6, in support of their claim. On the other hand the Transport Corporation examined its driver as R.W. 1 and they have not marked any document in support of its defence. The tribunal on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident was caused only due to the rashness and negligence of the bus driver and ultimately passed an award for Rs. 5,00,750/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the said award the Transport-corporation has preferred this appeal before this Court.
5. Mr. P. Pandi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised the following submissions:—
(1) The deceased sustained fatal injuries due to his own negligence, carelessness by protruding his head outside the bus at the time of the accident.
(2) There is no acceptable evidence to hold that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. Consequently, the fixation of Rs. 4,00,000/- towards pecuniary loss is highly excessive.
(3) Since there is no sanction of law or authority of law to award compensation under the heads of mental agony and loss of love and affection, the award of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the tribunal is contrary to law. In order to strengthen the abovesaid
