PANJIKARAN PAULOSE JOSEPH Vs. KUSUM VITHAL PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the driver, owner and insurer of a private motor-bus bearing registration No. M. T. T. 4383, the driving of which motor-bus led to the death of Vithal Gopal Patil whose widow and children are arrayed as respondent 1 before us.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 had hired the bus mentioned above and it was in the course of a task being executed for the second respondent that the bus on 16-11-1981 at about 6. 00 a. m. dashed against Vithal leaving him dead instantaneously. At the time of his death Vithal was in the employ of Siemens (I) Ltd. , his designation being that of a Draughtsman. Vithal was 45 years of age and was to retire on the attainment of age of 60 years. His sons Vinay, Prashant and Sandesh were 12, 9 and 4 years old at the time of passing away of their father, while his widow Kusum must have been just out of her twenties for she gave out her age to be 31 years when she came to testify before the Tribunal on 14-10-1983. The claim lodged by the widow and the sons was for compensation totalling Rs. 4,12,500/- plus interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application till the same was paid. This sum was made up of loss of salary for 15 years, loss of future benefits by of way increments and gratuity, loss of provident fund contribution by the employer, loss suffered on account of pain and mental agony and loss on account of loss of consortium, love and affection- the total of these five items necessitating a deduction on account of lump sum payment and amount received from the Life Insurance Corporation. The sum deductible was placed at Rs. 1,37,500/ -. Appellants and respondent No. 2 raised various defences all of which need not detain us. So far as the position in the appeal is concerned, it was the case of the appellants that the quantum at which the compensation was being claimed was unduly high. Amongst the witnesses examined in the proceeding before the Tribunal was the widow Kusum. She testified that Vithal was hale and hearty at the time of his death. Her husband was a qualified Draughtsman having undergone the requisite course from a Polytechnic at Dhulia. As a Draughtsman in Siemens (I) Ltd. , Vithal was getting the normal increments and promotions to which the staff members in that company were entitled. The total of emoluments payable to him at the time of his death came to Rs. 2,454/ -. Kusum produced the pay advice slip relating to the month of October 1981 i. e. the month preceding that in which Vithal was run over by the bus. The company in which Vithal was serving had provided him residential quarters, which quarters were at distance of half a furlong from the office in which Vithal had to work. The quarters were located near Diva Naka and Diva Naka is a fairly prominent place in Thane city. A deduction was being made by the company for the occupation charges, but the same must have been nominal for the deduction was a mere Rs. 214. 50 ps. per month. Kusum went on to testify that Vithals entitlements at the time of his retirement would have been Rs. 3,410/- per month. She spoke of the deceased earning a certain amount every month by way of overtime wages. The entire sum earned by the husband went towards the upkeep of the family. Vithal was a person of sober habits not addicted to any vices and the total expenditure upon Vithal which covered food and raiment, did not exceed Rs. 300/- per month. In cross-examination Kusum said that she would be examining some responsible member of the staff of Siemens (I) Ltd. , who would give particulars in respect of her husbands earnings at the time of his death and future. Such a witness was not examined and something turns upon that, to which aspect of the matter we shall come later. The learned Member of the Tribunal took into consideration various factors and awarded respondent No. 1 compensation amounting to Rs. 3, 24,000/ -. This sum was to be paid by the appellants jointly and severally together with interest at rate 10 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Appellants were also to pay costs in proportion to the sum awarded to respondent No. 1. The only point taken in appeal is an attack upon the quantum of compensation awarded to respondent No. 1.

(3.) APPELLANTS contend that an unduly high figure has been taken into consideration for ascertaining the dependency benefit to which respondent No. 1 were entitled. The personal expenses upon Vithal could never be as low as Rs. 300/- per month. In their application respondent No. 1 had themselves conceded to a deduction for receipt of lump sum payment and amount received from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Such a deduction should have been provided in the compensation awarded to the respondent No. 1. Interest was not payable on future pecuniary loss. The compensation had to be just and fair, however regrettable the mishap and however much one sympathised with the loss sustained by the widow and the minor sons of Vithal. Learned Counsel representing respondent No. 1 defends the award assailed by the appellants contending that his clients in fact should have got much more. In particular, he draws our attention to the Tribunal not awarding any compensation for loss of consortium and benefit to the estate of the deceased. He also wants us to raise the interest on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, saying that this is what the interests of justice require us to do, though conceding that his clients have not preferred a cross objection.