Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. P. Bhargava and A. P. Sen, JJ.
SMT.GULAB DEVI SOHANEY - Appellant
Versus
GOVT.OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. - Respondents
Misc. (First) Appeal 134 Of 1968
Decided On : 09/29/1970
Under section 110-B of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, the Claims Tribunal is required to determine an amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. What amount of compensation would be just has necessarily to depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression 'just' has a wider ambit than the words used in sections 1-A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act and, therefore, though a Claims Tribunal, while dealing with a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, has only to consider what appears to it to be "just compensation", on the facts and circumstances of the case before it, need not strictly follow and apply the basis of the assessment of compensation indicated in the various decisions under the Fatal Accidents Act, such decisions, Indian or English, are of general guidance, in cases of claim for compensation. [Para 5]
The damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit or benefit reducible to money value. In assessing the damages all circumstances which may be legitimately pleaded in diminution of the damages must be considered. The actual pecuniary loss of each individual entitled to sue can only be ascertained by balancing on the one hand, the loss to him of the future pecuniary benefit, and, on the other, any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to him, by reason of the death. AIR 1970 SC 376, AIR 1966 SC 1750, AIR 1962 SC 1 & AIR 1969 Delhi 183 relied on. [Para 6]
When the claimant is the mother, it was not sufficient to prove that she lost by the death of her son a mere speculated possibility of pecuniary advantage. In order to succeed, it was necessary for her to show that she has lost a reasonable probability for pecuniary advantage. [Para 10]
The life expectancy of the deceased or of the beneficiaries whichever is shorter is an important factor. AIR 1970 SC 376 relied on. [Para 11]
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Ss. 110-A & 110-B - deduction in amount of pecuniary benefit for payment in lump sum.
The decided case under the Fatal Accidents Act show that since the claimant gets a lump sum and because of uncertainties of life, such as the deceased or the claimant might die before the expiry of their normal span of life a deduction of 10 to 20 per cent from the amount of pecuniary benefit is usually made. The reasons for such deduction are based on justice and fair play between the parties and, therefore, a similar deduction should also be made even in claims under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. [Para 12]
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - S. 110-A - interest on compensation - when allowed.
No interest can be awarded for the period prior to the institution of the proceedings, as no interest can be had on unliquidated damages. The Claims Tribunal has, however, the power to award interest (a) from the date of the application to the date of the award, and (b) from date of the award to the date of payment, in a proper case. 1970 JLJ 504 relied on.
But interest may not be allowed when the deduction on account of payment in a lump sum is not made. [Para 12]
( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, filed by the claimant, is directed against an award of the Claims Tribunal. Jabalpur, dated 17th april 1968, seeking an enhancement of the compensation amount.
( 2 ) THE material facts, shortly stated, are as follows. The claim for compensation arose out of an accident involving the death of the claimant's son, Sureshchandra sohaney, who was a temporary Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department (Irrigation), Government of Madhya Pradesh, arising out of the use of the government jeep --M. P. R. 7045. He was travelling in the jeep along with Shri R. J. Agrawal. Assistant Engineer. P. W. D. Seoni (N. A. W. 1) and the jeep was driven by the driver, Abdul Bashir (N. A. W. 2) They had come to Jabalpur in connection with Government work and had been to the M. P. E. B. office on 25th october. 1964, to reach one Shri Aiyangar. Superintending Engineer, P. W. D. , on their way back to Seoni. While the jeep was negotiating a curve on the M. P. E. B. private road for taking the Jabalpur-Nagpur road, it skidded and went out of control and fell into a khud. The deceased received head injuries and was removed to the Medical College, Jabalpur, in an unconscious condition where he died on 27th October, 1964. The Claims Tribunal has found, as a fact, that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of Abdul Bashir (N. A. W. 3), and as he was a servant of the state Government, the Government was vicariously liable to pay damages for the loss suffered by the claimant. She had claimed Rs. 9,00,000/-as compensation for the loss of her son. The Claims Tribunal has, however, assessed the damages recoverable by her to be Rs. 18,000/-, worked out at Rs. 100/-per month for a period of 15 years, as the claimant was 45 years of age, on the date of the death of her son and, therefore, her normal expectancy of life was for another 15 years. The State Government has not preferred any appeal against the award and, therefore, its liability to pay damages is undisputed.
( 3 ) ONLY question involved in the appeal is whether the assessment of damages by the Claims Tribunal at Rs. 18,000/- was contrary to law or was so inordinately low that it must be held as erroneous. The claimant had sought the recovery of Rs. 9,00,000/- on the allegation that her son was a Junior Engineer in the time-scale of Rs. 240--12 1/2-- 315--E. B. 12 /12--340--15--370--20--450, that he had a brilliant career and was 25 years of age at the time of his death and, therefore, she had great expectations about his earnings, as he was expected to live a long life of about 80 years, since there was longevity in his family, that he had received an offer for the post of an Assistant engineer (Civil) on a starting salary of Rs. 450/- per month from M/s. Continental construction (Pvt.) Ltd, New Delhi, and, that it was expected that her son would have risen to great heights and rendered useful service for at least 40 years, and would have amassed area' wealth, by his earnings as an Engineer in service and in industry. The claimant accordingly claimed Rs. 9,00,000/- under the following heads-- (i) The net savings @ Rs. 10,000/- per year for 30 years in Government service would amount to Rs. 3,00,000/ -. (ii) The remaining 10 years devoted to Industrial business. Net saving of rs. 60,000/- per year for 10 years. . . . . . . . . . Rs. 6,00,000/rs. 9,00,000/
( 4 ) THE Claims Tribunal, while determining the quantum of damages payable, observed as follows:--"the deceased Sureshchandra, had he lived would have been spending at least Rs. 150/- per month over himself, as long as he was a bachelor. After his marriage, and birth of his children, his expenses would have kept on increasing, and the increase in pay would have been neutralized by the increase in family of the deceased Sureshcandra. It is not a case of a widow, or of a son or daughter of the deceased claiming compensation. . Hence is a mother of th
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
