UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NEELAMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 116 of 1982 (Shastri Brothers v. Mst. Neelambai and Ors.) which also arises out of the award impugned in the appeal.

(2.) THIS appeal is filed under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Insurance Company who has been made jointly and severally, liable to pay compensation to the respondent on account of death of Muni Ram in an accident on 7.3.1979. Misc. Appeal No116 of 1982 is by the owners of the vehicle causing the accident. Both the appeals arc directed against the award dated 12th December, 1981 passed by Shri A.H.H. Abidi, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balaghat in Claims case No. 2 of 1980. Respondents -claimants, in their claim, filed under Section 110 -B of the Act claimed to be the widow and children of Mani Ram who died in the accident with bus No. M.P.J.8626 owned by the appellant Shastri Brother in M.A. No. 116 of 1982 and insured with this appellant. It is not in dispute that the deceased Mani Ram was travelling in the said bus on the fateful day and was crushed to death under its wheels. It was alleged that the deceased Mani Ram while travelling in the bus suddenly fell down from it and was crushed to death by its rear wheel. It was also alleged that the bus was being driven by respondent Sharda Prasad in a rash and negligent manner, who suddenly applied brakes as a result of which passengers lost their balance, the door of the vehicle opened and the deceased Mani Ram who was sitting near the door, fell down and crushed. Mani Ram was aged about 26 years, and engaged in agricultural operations on his own land which was his main source of earning. The claimants therefore, claimed an amount of Rs. 1,10,800/ - as compensation. The appellant Insurance Company admitted that the bus was insured with them but denied its liability to pay any compensation as no such compensation was payable by the owner. The owner -company in its written -statement denied, that the bus was driven rashly and negligently. Their specific defence was that the deceased in his hurry to get down, jumped from the moving bus and the driver in spite of his best efforts, could not save him. The learned Tribunal held that the claimants were the legal heirs of the deceased Maniram who died in the accident on 7.3.1979. He also held that the cause of accident was sudden application of brakes by the driver resulting in opening of gate and the consequent fall of Mani Ram. That is how the appellants were held liable to pay compensation. The defence that the deceased tried to get down from the moving bus was disbelieved. In spite of it the learned Tribunal only awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - after deducting Rs. 8, 000/ - on account of uncertainties of life from the total amount of Rs. 18, 000/ -calculated by it. It is this a ward which is impugned in this appeal. The claimants also felt aggrieved by the award and have preferred their cross -objection claiming an enhancement by at least Rs. 50,000/ -.

(3.) THE next and important question is about the quantum of compensation. Learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 423/ - per month, out of which he has been held to be spending only Rs. 200/ - on his wife and two children. It the intention he to ascertain real dependency of these persons this conclusion must be held to be unjustified. Even if it was to be held that the deceased was not giving these claimants more than the bare necessities of life, a sum of Rs. 200/ - for three persons would be insufficient for the purpose. If we take into the consideration the fact that the lady was pregnant at the time of accident and her needs as an expecting mother were more than ordinary needs, this amount would not be sufficient to maintain the wife alone. It is true that some amount of guess work is inherent in this exercise and yet the end result or the conclusion must have a rational relationship with the realities of life. This obligation is not only inherent in every judicial process, but is the statutory requirement in view of 'Just compensation' requiring determination under Section 110 -B of the Act. Then determination of amount of dependency is not an abstract proposition, but an exercise intended to ascertain the actual dependency of the claimants and hence can not be divorced from realities of life. Not only this, the apportionment of the family income by the Tribunal is also illogical. If the deceased was earning Rs. 423/ - per month and was spending only Rs. 200/ - on this wife and two children; it only means that he was spending the balance on himself. Anyone having even a little understanding of Indian family system would refuse to believe that the head of the family would enjoy such a disproportionate benefit. Indeed if Indian traditions of tolerance and sacrifice are to be taken into consideration, it will have to be held that the father as the head of the family, would prfer to better maintain his children even by sacrificing his own comfort. Under the circumstances, this court has no hesitation in holding that the conclusion that the dependency of this claimants in terms of money was only Rs. 200/ - is a perverse conclusion. It must consequently be held that the impugned award does not award a 'Just Compensation' and hence can not be upheld.