SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(Ori) 137

High Court Of Orissa
R. C. Patnaik, J.
GENERAL MANAGER, ORISSA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant
Versus
MAHESWAR ROUT - Respondent
Misc. Appeal 108  Of  1979
Decided On : 10/12/1982

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.MOHANTY, B.K.Berera, M.MANVAR

The quantum of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case should be assessed taking into consideration various factors such as the age of the deceased and beneficiaries, the income of the deceased, the loss of affection and prospective service, and the uncertainties of life.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - DEATH OF PASSENGER - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - LOSS OF AFFECTION AND PROSPECTIVE SERVICE - INCOME OF DECEASED - AGE OF DECEASED AND BENEFICIARIES - UNCERTAINTIES OF LIFE - LUMP SUM AWARD - INVESTMENT OF BALANCE AMOUNT FOR FIXED TERM - PAYMENT OF INTEREST ANNUALLY.

Fact of the Case:

A passenger, Sarbeswar Rout, died in an accident involving a public service vehicle owned by the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 21,000/-. The owner appealed against the quantum of compensation, while the claimants sought enhancement.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. It also found that the deceased was 17 years and a half of age at the time of the accident and was helping the family and rendering assistance. The court assessed the loss to the parents at Rs. 125/- per month and awarded damages of Rs. 25,000/-.

Issues: 1. Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle? 2. Whether the deceased was earning anything and rendering any financial help? 3. Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was appropriate?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court applied the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' and held that the fact that the vehicle went off the road and rolled over twice was presumptive evidence of rash and negligent driving. 2. The court disbelieved the evidence adduced by the claimants regarding the alleged income of the deceased from his personal business. 3. The court held that the amount awarded by the Tribunal was not supportable on the reasonings given and assessed the damages at Rs. 25,000/-.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the owner's appeal and allowed the claimants' appeal in part. It awarded a consolidated cost of Rs. 200/- against the owner.

R. C. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) ONE Sarbeswar Rout, who was travelling in a public service vehicle O. R. D. 1685 owned by the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation, died in an accident that took place on 10-1-1977 around 3,30 P. M. on National Highway No. 42. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 21,000/ -. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 104 of 1979 is by the owner impugning the decision on the ground that the damages awarded were excessive and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 108 of 1979 is by the claimants seeking enhancement of the damages. The claimants are the parents, grandmother and younger brothers of the deceased.

( 2 ) IT was alleged that the vehicle proceeding on the National Highway No. 42 was being driven rashly and negligently on account of which it went off the road and rolling over twice came to a halt. In the process, the deceased who had been thrown out was crushed and expired at the spot. It was said that the deceased, a young man of 22 years of age, was a highly resourceful person and out of his business activities, he was earning a sum of Rs. 3,500/- and was contributing the amount for the maintenance and well being of the parents, grandmother and younger brothers. It was alleged that he was engaged in various profitable activities and had high prospects for larger income. These benefits were lost to the claimants.

( 3 ) THE owner refuted the allegations and alleged that the vehicle met with the accident not on account of any rash and negligent driving but in course of the driver trying to save the life of a cyclist who suddenly appeared in front of the vehicle.

( 4 ) ON an analysis of the materials the Tribunal held that death of Sarbeswar was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. It further found that the deceased was 17 years and a half of age at the time of the accident and having regard to the accident and having regard to the facts and circumstances, a sum of Rs. 21,000/- was the entitlement of the claimants as damages.

( 5 ) MR. Manawar, the learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle, endeavoured for a reversal of the finding regarding rashness and negligence. But having regard to the materials the contention has no leg to stand on. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the application of the principle 'res ipsa loquitur' is apposite. The fact that the vehicle while moving on a national highway went off the road and rolled over twice is presumptive evidence of rash and negligent driving. The burden was on the owner to establish that there was no rashness and negligence. But no material was placed by the owner before the Tribunal by way of examining witnesses or proving documents to substantiate the plea taken in the written statement. The finding of the Tribunal on the question of rashness and negligence cannot, therefore, be faulted.

( 6 ) THE next question is the quantum of compensation to be awarded having regard to the facts and circumstances. The claimants grieve that the amount is low while the owner says that it has been excessive. The learned counsel for the claimants referred me to a large number of authorities and based his contentions on a comparative statement relating to the victim's age at the time of death, his prospects in life, the age of the claimants, the pecuniary loss sustained and the damages awarded. In an exerciser of this nature, many imponderables are to be taken into account and the damages awarded in various cases have, therefore, been rightly not uniform. The Courts have tried their best to reach at the sum which appeared to them to be just in the facts and circumstances. One aspect that should, however, be kept in mind while quantifying the damage is that the legislature advisedly has not prescribed any principle or formula according to which the damage is to be quantified. It has left the quantum to the discretion of the Tribunal; to award such amount as damages which appears to it to be just. It is enough to observe that the word 'just' has been used in











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top