NAV BHARAT BUILDERS Vs. PYARABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangli dated 12th of December, 1979. It is not disputed that deceased Jagannath died in a motor accident, which took place on 17th of October, 1979 on the National Highway known as Bangalore Pune Road. It appears that the deceased Jagannath was sleeping on the road and the motor truck owned by the appellant No. 1 was coming from Kolhapur side and was proceeding to Pune on 17th October, 1978. Therefore, it is also not disputed that to some extent the negligence of the deceased in sleeping on the road was responsible for the accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals has assessed contributory negligence of deceased Jagannath to the extent of twenty five percent. The learned Member of the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was driving his vehicle negligently as well as rashly and because of his rashness he could not control the vehicle and therefore the accident took place. This finding is also not challenged in this appeal. What is challenged in the appeal is only the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. Deceased Jagannath was studying in S.Y.B.A. class at the time of his death. He was also getting a scholarship of Rs. 1200/- per annum. He was also conducting coaching classes. The learned Member of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the income of deceased Jagannath at the time of his death was round-about Rs. 200/- per month and being a student he was handing over his income to his mother. So far as future income of Jagannath is concerned, learned Member found that he would have normally earned Rs. 400/- to 500/- per month by serving in some Government Department or elsewhere and would have given at least Rs. 200/- per month to his mother. Mother of the deceased was 55 years old and therefore she would have received income from her deceased son for at least about 20 years. Therefore learned Member assessed damages at Rs. 48,000/-. To this an amount of Rs. 6000/- was added being amount of general damages. The learned Member deducted 25 percent from this amount towards contributory negligence of deceased Jagannath and ultimately passed an award of Rs. 40,500/-. It is this award which is challenged in this appeal by the appellants. Shri Chaphekar, learned Counsel for the appellants contended before us that deceased Jagannath could have contributed Rs. 200/- per month to his family for the first seven years, but thereafter he could not have continued to do so because in all probabilities he would have married. In that case it is difficult to hold that he would have continued to contribute Rs. 200/- per month. Learned Member should have held that after marriage Jagannath could have contributed Rs. 150/- only towards family expenditure. The mother of the deceased was 55 years old at the material time and therefore even after taking into consideration estimated increase in the average longevity of life she would have received this amount for another 15 years only. Therefore, according to Shri Chaphekar, even if the findings recorded by the trial Court are accepted, then also total compensation cannot exceed Rs. 32,000/-. It was not possible for the learned Counsel for the respondent to dispute this position. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for both sides, we have gone through the material evidence on record. After taking into consideration the net annual income of the deceased by dint of his labour, manual or of the head and heart the amount he would have spent for himself and for his dependants, and the expectancy of life span of his dependent mother, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the compensation in the present case cannot exceed Rs. 32,000/-. Hence the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified and is substituted by Rs. 32,000/-. The order regarding payment of Court fee also stands suitably modified. Original opponents Nos. 1 to 3 to pay the Court fee on the amount of Rs. 32,000/- and the respondents original petitioners to pay Court fee on the remaining part of the claims made and dismissed.

(2.) From the record it appears that the amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is already deposited in the Court and thereafter is invested in a nationalised Bank, and the claimant is paid interest thereon regularly. This was an interim arrangement made by this Court during the pendency of the appeal. Since the appeal is being partly allowed, the claimant will be entitled to Rs. 32,000/- towards compensation and the balance of Rs. 8,500/- could be withdrawn by the appellants. However, this is not the end of the matter, as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal will have to pass necessary consequential order regarding investment of the amount, in accordance with law. In this context we would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal towards the amendment to Rule 306 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959. The said Rule stands amended from 31st of January, 1983. By this amendment sub-rules (3) and (4) are inserted in Rule 306 of the Rules, which read as under as under :---

(3.) These guidelines are not exhaustive but are merely illustrative. These guidelines are also in addition and not in derogation to sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 306 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules. We, therefore, direct the Accident Claims Tribunal to consider the case of present claimant, who is a woman belonging to the backward class community, in the light of the relevant rules and aforesaid guidelines and then pass an appropriate order. Obviously such an order will have to be passed after giving an opportunity of being heard to the claimant.