Back
1991 Supreme(All) 853
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N. L. Ganguli and Birendra Dikshat, JJ.
DHANPATI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
F. A. F. O. 3 Of 1983
Decided On : 12/10/1991
V.SINGH
The employment of the widow of the deceased in a government job after the accident cannot be a ground to refuse the payment of compensation to her under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 110-D - COMPENSATION - AWARD - ENHANCEMENT - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - LONGEVITY - INCOME - EMPLOYMENT OF WIDOW - MENTAL SHOCK AND LOSS OF COMPANY.
Fact of the Case:
In a motor accident case, the deceased, Chhotey Lal, was killed due to the rash and negligent driving of a car belonging to the Public Works Department, State of U.P. The deceased was employed in the Hydel Department and was getting a salary of Rs. 421.75 per month. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to Balopa and Rs. 7,000/- to Dhanpati and her minor daughter. Dhanpati, the widow of the deceased, filed an appeal claiming that the compensation awarded was inadequate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal had erred in not awarding compensation to Dhanpati on account of her husband's death in the accident, only because she had been given a job in the Hydel Department and the present emoluments she was receiving were more than the amount of the salary of the deceased. The court held that this could not be a ground to refuse the payment of compensation to the wife and that she was entitled to compensation according to the multiplier system.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation to Dhanpati on account of her husband's death in the accident, only because she had been given a job in the Hydel Department? 2. Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Tribunal had erred in not awarding compensation to Dhanpati on account of her husband's death in the accident, only because she had been given a job in the Hydel Department. The court held that this could not be a ground to refuse the payment of compensation to the wife and that she was entitled to compensation according to the multiplier system. 2. The court held that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 38,400/- for Dhanpati and her minor daughter, with an interest of 10% from the date of the award by the Tribunal below, besides Rs. 7,000/- as compensation for loss of society and the company and mental shock etc. with an interest of 10% from the date of award.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 38,400/- for Dhanpati and her minor daughter, with an interest of 10% from the date of the award by the Tribunal below, besides Rs. 7,000/- as compensation for loss of society and the company and mental shock etc. with an interest of 10% from the date of award.
( 1 ) THIS first appeal from order is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal dated 24. 9. 1982 in Claim Petition No. 11 of 1979, by which the claim petition was partly allowed and a compensation of Rs. 5. 000/- was awarded to Balopa and Rs. 7,000/- to Dhanpati and her minor daughter.
( 2 ) DHANPATI alone has filed this appeal under Section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a relief that amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is illusory and wholly inadequate in view of facts and circumstances of the case. The prayer is to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation according to law.
( 3 ) ON 21. 4. 1979 an accident took place by motor car No. UTE 414 belonging to the respondent state of U. P. , Superintending Engineer, IV Circle, P. W. D. , Varanasi. Deceased Chhotey Lal was employed in the Hydel Department at Robertsganj and was getting a salary of Rs. 400/- per month. On 21. 4. 1979 at 8 p. m. when Chhotey Lal who was going to Chhaka Power Station on rickshaw in connection with his duties, the aforementioned car UTE 414 which was being driven rashly and negligently came from opposite direction and dashed against the rickshaw by which the deceased was travelling. The rickshaw-puller Rajendra Prasad and other occupant of the rickshaw received injuries and Chhotey Lal, husband of the appellant Dhanpati, died due to the injuries caused in the accident.
( 4 ) THE Tribunal found after scanning the evidence that at the time of death, the age of the deceased Chhotey Lal was about 34 years. He was in good health and had he not been killed in the accident, he would have lived up to 90 years. As the shock and result of the death, the appellant suffered great mental shock, loss of the company of the husband, hence a compensation of Rs. 1. 79. 200/- was claimed from the respondent. The respondent contested the claim petition by filing a written statement and pleaded that car No. UTE 414 was not driven rashly or negligently, in fact it was driven on a normal speed and the headlight was on at the time of the accident. The rickshaw had abruptly crossed the road at a distance of about 2 km. from robertsganj, it had no light. Since the rickshaw had abruptly crossed the road, the accident took place. It was said that the car was in perfect order and its brakes were provided with new lining. There was no negligence of driver of the car but on account of rash and negligent driving of the rickshaw which resulted into the accident. The PWD staff car was not insured with any insurance company. The amount of compensation claimed was stated to be highly inflated and excessive.
( 5 ) THE fact that Dhanpati is the widow of the deceased Chhotey Lal and the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the Ambassador car No. UTE 414 belonging to the public Works Department, State of U. P. , is fully proved by the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the court below on the aforesaid points have not been disputed by the respondent.
( 6 ) IN the present First Appeal From Order, the appellant has claimed for a relief that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is wholly illusory and meagre and inadequate in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The evidence of PW 4 Mohd. Israil, who filed the copy of the service record of the Hydel Department concerning the deceased, conclusively proved that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 421. 75 at the time of death. The Tribunal accepted the said amount as the monthly income of the deceased.
( 7 ) ABOUT the question of longevity in the family of the deceased, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of Dhanpati, appellant, who stated that the father of Chhotey Lal deceased lived up to the age of 80 years. The mother of the deceased at the time of the accident was about 65 years of age, who also received compensation on account of her being dependant of the deceased. The question about the lo
