BHANWARI BAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEATH has an inexorable finality about it. Human life that has been lost was precious and in that sense priceless and invaluable. But the law can compensate the estate of a person whose life is lost by the wrongful act of another only in the way the law is equipped to compensate, i. e. , monetary compensations calculated on certain well recognised principles. 'loss to the estate' which is the entitlement of the estate and the 'loss of dependency' estimated on the basis of capitalised present value awardable to the dependants and heirs are the main components in the computation of compensation in fatal accident actions.

(2.) ON 24. 1. 2003, Ashok Kumar, a cook employed in C. R. P. F. , lost his life in a road accident in Baramula in Jammu and kashmir. Claimants are his widow and children. They are in appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 30. 1. 2006 passed by the m. A. C. T. , Manasa, District Neemuch in claim Case No. 17 of 2005. By the impugned award, the learned M. A. C. T. has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000 under 'no fault liability'; Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000 towards the funeral expenses. Thus, in all, a total sum of rs. 57,000 was awarded by the Tribunal as against the claim of Rs. 21,70,000. The reason why Tribunal declined to work out compensation in accordance with known principles was paid ex gratia payment of rs. 5,00,000 under a scheme of Central government and other terminal benefits like gratuity, provident fund, etc. According to the Tribunal for one wrong, damages could not be awarded twice.

(3.) AFTER having heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we find that the entire approach of the Tribunal was erroneous and very strange. The question for our determination is whether ex gratia payment would disentitle the appellants (sic from claiming compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. The learned counsel for the appellants) submitted that impugned award is unsustainable in law and he placed reliance on decisions reported in State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Pushpalatha, 2007 ACJ 2038 (AP); A. Lakshmi v. Arjun Associated Pvt. Ltd. , 2005 ACJ 704 (AP); Arvind Singh Mann v. Himachal Road Trans. Corpn. , 1990 acj 647 (HP ). On the other hand learned assistant Solicitor General while support-ing the award placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United india Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean mahajan, 2002 ACJ 1441 (SC ).