1984 Supreme(MP) 421

K. K. Verma, J.
Subhan Ali v. Smt. Mangla Bai.
M. A. No. 26 of 1976 (G); Decided on 6-8-1984.

Headnote:(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 110-A -- maintenance of action under -- earning of deceased prior to accident not a condition precedent -- reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit -- sufficient.

        (2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 110-B -- claim for mental agony -- dependent not entitled for.

        (3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 110-A -- claim petition under -- longevity not proved -- cannot be taken into account.

        Appellant Subhan Ali (a police constable driver) and his employer, the State of Madhya Pradesh (the appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 61/76) have preferred separate appeal u/s 110-D (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) aggrieved by the award dated 2-7-1976 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim case No. 12 of 1974 of Rs. 24,200/- as compensation to respondent No. 1 Manglabai and her husband Laxman Tambat--the parents of deceased Shashikant.

        Held : The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony to the claimants. It is settled law that the claimants dependents of a deceased are not entitled to any compensation under the above head C. K. Subramania Iyyer Vs. T. Kunhi Kullai Naiyyar 1970 ACJ 110 paragraphs 6, 7 & 8). I, therefore, hold that the claimants were not entitled to get any compensation for their mental agony.

        The Claims Tribunal then awarded a sum of 19,200/- on account of prospective monetary loss on account of untimely death of the claimants son Shashikant at the age of 17 years. How he arrived at the aforementioned figure, may well be gathered from the following extract of his award :--

        "I find that he would have contributed atleast Rs. 100/- per month to the welfare of his parents and the family. Had he Li"Ved upto the age of 55 years, the contribution he would have made for 32 years assuming that he would have begun earning at the age of 22 years. His total contribution to the welfare of the family thus works out to Rs. 39,000/-. But, looking to the age of his parents which is 55 and 50 years respectively they would have got this contribution only for another 20 years. Therefore, the compensation that the parents can get would be @ Rs. 1200/- per year for a period of 20 years which amounts to Rs. 24,000/-. Making usual deductions of 20% from this amount, since the claimants get a lumpsum and because of uncertainties of life, the total amount of damages works out to Rs. 19,000/-."

        It is well settled that it is not a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action for compensation under Section 110-A of the M. P. Act, 1939 that the deceased should have been actually earning. money or moneys worth or contributing to the support of the claimants at or before the date of the death, provided that the claimants had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit from the continuance of the life (C. K. Subramania Iyyer v. Kunhi Kullai Nayyer 1970 ACJ 110 paragraphs 6, 7 & 8).

        On reading the evidence of Laxman Tambat (AW 1) in the light of Shrikants Mark-sheet (Ex. P-1) and the certificate of the Principal of the Government Jiwaji Higher Secondary School, Lashkar (Ex. P-2) the following facts are found proved in the absence of rebuttal.

        Shashikant was born on 13-5-1955. He passed the VIIIth class in the Second Division. He got 39 marks out of 100 in General Science and 63 marks out of 100 in Mathematics. At the time of his death he was a regular student of IXth Class and used to do odd jobs or run errands for his father Laxman (AW 2), who had a net income of Rs. 400/- per month from a foundry. It is, therefore established that the claimants had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit from Shashikant and this expectation was cut short by the untimely death of Shashikant.

        It is evident that Shashikant was an intelligent boy who used to lend a hand in his fatherss vocation. I agree with the Claims Tribunals reasonable-assessment that Shashikant could be reasonably expected to earn and spare Rs. 100/- per-month for his parents from 1977 onwards. I accept the finding with the modification that the sum of Rs. 100/- is to be taken as an average of the contributions.

        The Claims Tribunals assessment is that the period of dependency was to be 20 years from 1977 onwards. This is alone after saying that Laxman and Mangla were 55 and 50 years respectively. This conclusion is not based on any discussion letalone reasons. I, therefore, propose to consider the matter afresh.

        There was no evidence about the longevity of the parents of Laxman. The Claims Tribunal ignored AW 1 Laxmans statement that of late his health had been bad. In fact, Laxman died at the age of 60 years on 14-1-1977.

        There is no evidence about the longevity of Manglas parents or her state of health.

        Hence the Claims Tribunals finding that the period of dependency of Laxman and Mangla could extend up to the year of 1997 does not commend itself to me, and is set-aside.

        It would be reasonable to assess Manglas expectancy of life upto the age of 70 years i.e. upto the year 1992 because she is now aged 62 years.

        The fact that Laxman died on 14-1-77 militates against award of any compensation in his favour but it cannot be used to affect or whittle down Manglas claim.

        I hold that Shashikant would have given but for his untimely death monetary help to Mangla @ Rs. 100/- p. m. from 1977 to 1992. This works out to Rs. 18,000/-. The escalation of inflation since 1977 onwards bas to be given due weight. It would be hard on Mangla to impose a 20% deduction. I, therefore, propose a 10% deduction from Rs. 18,000/- on the grounds of lump-sum payment and uncertainties of life. Thus a just and proper compensation payable to Mangla comes to 16,200/-. 1970 ACJ 110 relied on. Appeal partly allowed.