NANJIBHAI PATEL Vs. VISHNU PRASAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the claimants' appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the award dated 8. 8. 1984 passed by Mr. R. K. Seth, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 47 of 1981, awarding a sum of Rs. 12,000/-only to the appellants for the death of their son Govind Bhai in an accident caused by rash and negligent driving on 14. 4. 1981.

(2.) SINCE the respondents against whom the award has been passed did not file any cross-appeal or cross-objection it can be assumed that they do not seriously challenge the finding that Govind Bhai Patel died in the accident caused by rash and negligent driving. That the deceased was being carried as a passenger in jeep-taxi No. CPT1084 from Dhamtari to Raipur is not in dispute. That the said jeep met with an accident with the truck No. MPS 608 in which Govind Bhai Patel and one Jaikishan died, is also not in dispute. The accident took place because of negligent driving of the truck and the taxi is the finding recorded by the Tribunal which is not under challenge. The learned Tribunal has held that deceased Govind Bhai Patel was about 24 years old and earning Rs. 300/- per month at the time of accident. He also held that the appellants were 47 and 45 years of age at that time. The learned Judge, however, fixed the dependency at Rs. 100/- per month and computed the same for 10 years and, therefore, fixed Rs. 12,000/- as compensation. It is this amount of compensation that is under challenge in this appeal. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that there is no justification whatsoever for calculating the dependency at Rs. 100/- per month nor was there any justification for computing the same for 10 years. It is, therefore, submitted that the compensation is abnormally low and deserves to be increased. Though no serious arguments were advanced on behalf of the owners of the vehicles, the learned Counsel for the insurance companies very strenuously urged that the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 2,000/-for an individual passenger in view of Section 95 (2) of the Act. Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore 1988 ACJ 270 (SC), it is submitted that even if the vehicle was comprehensively insured, the liability of the insurance company would not exceed the said statutory limit.

(3.) AS regards the amount of compensation, it has been the consistent view of this court that even if Section 92-A of the Act was not retrospective, it could be applied to all pending claims either before the Tribunal or the High Court. In Shamsher Khan v. M. P. Electricity Board 1988 ACJ 394 (MP) and the recent decision of this court in Sardar Ishwar Singh v. Himachal Puri 1990 ACJ 965 (MP), clarify this legal belief of this court beyond doubt. Under the circumstances, compensation for an accidental death under Section 110-B of the Act could not be less than Rs. 15,000/ -. Since the awarded amount of compensation is less than the minimum, it is not possible to sustain the impugned award. What should then be the just compensation' under Section 110-B of the Act? That the deceased was the only bread-earner of the family which consisted of his wife and parents is apparent. Since the widow has remarried, the appellants have been rendered destitute. That the deceased was of 24 years of age indicates that he would have provided shelter to the parents during their lifetime which on a reasonable basis is estimated to be 65 years. True, the appellants could not be expected to survive for 65 years more and yet there is no reason why they should be expected to survive for 10 years more only. Considering the fact that the appellants are aged 47 and 45 years, the learned Tribunal seems to be thinking that they would survive only till the age of 57 and 55. This cannot be accepted as justified. It is well-known that life expectancy in India has increased considerably and is now about 60 years on the average. For this reason this court and other courts have taken the normal expectancy of life to be between 70 to 75 years. [see Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation 1982 ACJ 300 (Delhi); Nan d Kaurv. Sukh Raj 1981 ACJ 320 (Delhi); Shiv Prasad Gupta v. S. M. Sabir Zaidi 1967 ACJ 321 (Allahabad) and Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corporation v. Munnabai 1967 ACJ 214 (MP)]. This was also the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Lanka Sarmma v. Rajendra Singh 1984 ACJ 198 (AP ). Under the circumstances, this court is not able to agree with the learned Tribunal that the appellants would live only for another 10 years and would have got help from the deceased only for that period. Considering the age of the deceased, it is the considered opinion of this court that the appellants would have got his support at least for a period of 20 years, if not more.