GULAB DEVI SOHANEY Vs. GOVT OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, filed by the claimant, is directed against an award of the Claims Tribunal. Jabalpur, dated 17th april 1968, seeking an enhancement of the compensation amount.

(2.) THE material facts, shortly stated, are as follows. The claim for compensation arose out of an accident involving the death of the claimant's son, Sureshchandra sohaney, who was a temporary Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department (Irrigation), Government of Madhya Pradesh, arising out of the use of the government jeep --M. P. R. 7045. He was travelling in the jeep along with Shri R. J. Agrawal. Assistant Engineer. P. W. D. Seoni (N. A. W. 1) and the jeep was driven by the driver, Abdul Bashir (N. A. W. 2) They had come to Jabalpur in connection with Government work and had been to the M. P. E. B. office on 25th october. 1964, to reach one Shri Aiyangar. Superintending Engineer, P. W. D. , on their way back to Seoni. While the jeep was negotiating a curve on the M. P. E. B. private road for taking the Jabalpur-Nagpur road, it skidded and went out of control and fell into a khud. The deceased received head injuries and was removed to the Medical College, Jabalpur, in an unconscious condition where he died on 27th October, 1964. The Claims Tribunal has found, as a fact, that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of Abdul Bashir (N. A. W. 3), and as he was a servant of the state Government, the Government was vicariously liable to pay damages for the loss suffered by the claimant. She had claimed Rs. 9,00,000/-as compensation for the loss of her son. The Claims Tribunal has, however, assessed the damages recoverable by her to be Rs. 18,000/-, worked out at Rs. 100/-per month for a period of 15 years, as the claimant was 45 years of age, on the date of the death of her son and, therefore, her normal expectancy of life was for another 15 years. The State Government has not preferred any appeal against the award and, therefore, its liability to pay damages is undisputed.

(3.) ONLY question involved in the appeal is whether the assessment of damages by the Claims Tribunal at Rs. 18,000/- was contrary to law or was so inordinately low that it must be held as erroneous. The claimant had sought the recovery of Rs. 9,00,000/- on the allegation that her son was a Junior Engineer in the time-scale of Rs. 240--12 1/2-- 315--E. B. 12 /12--340--15--370--20--450, that he had a brilliant career and was 25 years of age at the time of his death and, therefore, she had great expectations about his earnings, as he was expected to live a long life of about 80 years, since there was longevity in his family, that he had received an offer for the post of an Assistant engineer (Civil) on a starting salary of Rs. 450/- per month from M/s. Continental construction (Pvt.) Ltd, New Delhi, and, that it was expected that her son would have risen to great heights and rendered useful service for at least 40 years, and would have amassed area' wealth, by his earnings as an Engineer in service and in industry. The claimant accordingly claimed Rs. 9,00,000/- under the following heads-- (i) The net savings @ Rs. 10,000/- per year for 30 years in Government service would amount to Rs. 3,00,000/ -. (ii) The remaining 10 years devoted to Industrial business. Net saving of rs. 60,000/- per year for 10 years. . . . . . . . . . Rs. 6,00,000/rs. 9,00,000/