KAMLA DEVI Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been instituted by the appellantclaimant, namely, the mother of the deceased, invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1988"). The challenge is confined to the quantum of compensation, with a prayer for enhancement of her share as determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/First Additional District Judge, Haldwani, vide judgment and award dtd. 18/10/2019, rendered in M.A.C.P. No.146 of 2018. By the said award, learned Tribunal was pleased to grant a sum of 10,00,000/- in favour of the present appellant, together with interest @ 6% per annum, payable from the date of institution of the claim petition till the date of actual realization, fastening liability upon the respondent Insurance Company.

(2.) The brief factual conspectus, as emerges from the record, is that on 9/6/2018, at about 07:00 p.m., the husband of respondent no.2, namely, late Parvendra Singh @ Pappu Karki, was travelling in a motor car bearing registration No. UK04-H-7447, along with his companions, proceeding from Gauniyaro to Haldwani. When the said vehicle reached in the vicinity of Village Murkudia Haidakhan, the driver, Pushkar Singh, in a rash and negligent manner, lost control of the vehicle, causing it to plunge into a deep gorge. As a direct consequence of the said accident, late Parvendra Singh @ Pappu Karki, the driver Pushkar Singh, and one other occupant of the vehicle sustained fatal injuries and succumbed at the spot, while two other co-passengers suffered grievous bodily injuries. The occurrence of the unfortunate incident was forthwith intimated to Police Station Patti Rousil, whereupon First Information Report being Case Crime No. 02 of 2018 came to be registered, under Ss. 279, 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant, while advancing his submissions, has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal fell in grave error in failing to duly appreciate the fact that the present appellant is none other than the mother of the deceased, and was a rightful claimant before the Tribunal. It has been urged that the Tribunal, while determining the compensation, overlooked the vital circumstance that the appellant is an elderly widow of about 63 years of age, who has no independent means of livelihood and was wholly dependent upon the financial support and care of her deceased son. Learned counsel has further submitted that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family, and, upon his untimely demise, the appellant has been left in a pitiable condition, without any sustainable source of income to meet even her elementary needs of food, shelter, medical care and day-to-day living. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre sum of 10,00,000/- to the appellant which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be "just compensation" within the meaning of Sec. 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned counsel has strenuously argued that the Tribunal, while apportioning the compensation, acted contrary to the settled principles of law, inasmuch as, it failed to distribute the award equitably amongst all the claimants, and disproportionately favoured the widow and minor son of the deceased, thereby relegating the motherappellant to a position of near exclusion. Such distribution, it is urged, is neither in consonance with statutory principles nor with the mandate of natural justice, which requires equal and fair consideration of the rights of all dependents of the deceased. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the evolving jurisprudence of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to "consortium" and "loss of dependency," and submitted that the Tribunal has completely disregarded the head of "filial consortium" as recognized in authoritative pronouncements, particularly in "Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, wherein it has been categorically held that parents are entitled to compensation on account of the loss of love, affection, care, protection and companionship of their children. He submits that despite the appellant being the mother of the deceased and clearly falling within the category of Class-I dependents entitled to such recognition, the Tribunal has failed to award any substantial amount towards this head, thereby causing manifest injustice. It has further been urged that the Tribunal's approach suffers from non- application of mind, inasmuch as, it has not taken into account the peculiar hardship faced by an aged mother, who, after the demise of her only son, has been left destitute and without any succour. Learned counsel submits that the impugned award, in so far as it pertains to the appellant, is not only inadequate but also arbitrary and liable to be modified by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the award be suitably enhanced by granting to the appellant a fair and reasonable share of the compensation, commensurate with her status as a dependent, and in recognition of her right to filial consortium, so that she may live the remainder of her life with dignity.