H V RANGARAJU Vs. MUQBULPASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nanjangud, whereby M. V. C. No. 66 of 1995 has been allowed in part and a sum of Rs, 58,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p. a. awarded as compensation to the appellant for the death of his wife in a motor vehicle accident.

(2.) THE appellant accompanied by his wife late Smt. Manjula were travelling in a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus from B. R. Hills to Mysore on 4-6-1995. While the bus had yet to emerge from the winding hill section of the B. R. Hills, it plunged into a gorge nearly 500 feet deep resulting in injuries to several passengers and the death of Smt. Manjula. The appellant-husband of the deceased Smt. Manjula filed M. V. C. No. 66 of 1995 before the Tribunal alleging that the accident in question had occurred entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. A claim for payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 7,54,000/- was on that basis made by the appellant against the Corporation. This claim was opposed by the corporation on several grounds including the ground that the accident had not occurred on account of any rash or negligent driving of the bus by its driver as alleged. The Tribunal framed three issues and answered the same in favour of the appellant in terms of the judgment impugned in this appeal. The tribunal held that the accident in question had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and that the appellant in his capacity as the husband of the deceased Smt. Manjula was entitled to claim compensation. While examining the question of quantum of compensation payable to the claimant, the Tribunal placed reliance upon the decision of the high Court of Rajasthan in Ram Kumar and Others v Mahaveer and Others, to hold that even when there was no reliable evidence to prove that the deceased wife was having any independent income, the gratuitous services rendered by her as a housewife to the appellant were compensable in terms of money. These services the Tribunal assessed at Rs. 350/- p. m. borrowing support from a similar assessment made in the decision referred to above. Since the deceased was hardly 21 years old, the Tribunal chose a multiple of 17 to determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 75,600/ -. Having done so, the tribunal adverted to the question whether the entire amount determined by it could be awarded towards compensation in favour of the appellant. That question was answered by the Tribunal in the negative. It observed that the appellant had not come clean by making a statement whether or not he had remarried. The gratuitous services which the appellant had lost on account of the death of his wife would in the event. of remarriage of the husband become available to him from his second wife, in which event the husband would not strictly speaking suffer any loss monetarily or otherwise on account of the death of his first wife. The Tribunal accordingly reduced the amount of compensation on account of loss of dependency to the appellant to Rs. 50,000/- to which it added a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 1,000/-towards transportation of the dead body from the husband to the house. The total amount of Rs. 58,000/- so determined was made payable with interest at the rate of 9% p. a. from the date of the claim petition till the deposit of the amount.

(3.) APPEARING for the appellant, Mr. Nataraju submitted that the Tribunal had fallen in a palpable error in determining a sum of Rs. 75,600/- only as compensation payable for the death of the deceased Smt. Manjula. He urged that the 1994 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act had introduced the concept of notional income in cases where the victims of road accident were not proved to have had any definite source of income. The Tribunal ought to have according to the learned Counsel taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- and assessed the amount of compensation accordingly by deducting one-third of the said amount towards her personal expenses. The amount of compensation so determined would have according to the learned Counsel been in the neighbourhood of Rs. 2 lakhs if not more. Alternatively, he submitted that even if the compensation amount of Rs. 75,600/- determined by the Tribunal was found to be correctly assessed, the tribunal was not justified in reducing the amount to Rs. 50,000/- only on the assumption that the appellant had contracted a second marriage.