STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. TAPAN KUMAR DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents are husband and son of Aparajita Majumdar, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 2-5-84. A Lorry, TRL 1823, belonging to the Government of Tripura was being used to carry a big ladder. The lorry was proceeding at an excessive speed. The ladder fell down from the lorry and hit Aparajita Majumdar, who was proceeding in a rickshaw. She sustained injuries and was removed to G.B. hospital where she died after about an hour. Her husband and minor son filed a petition before the M.A.C. Tribunal claiming Rs. 4 (four) lakhs as compensation from the driver of the lorry and the State. The claim was resisted. The Tribunal upheld the case of the claimants and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000.00 including Rs. 15,000.00 paid as interim compensation, with interest of 6 per cent per annum. The State, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, has filed this appeal.

(2.) Aparajita Majumdar was aged about 34 years at the time of the accident. Her husband was aged about 39 years The son was aged about 3 years at the time of the accident. The deceased was working as U.D. Assistant under the State Government and her total emolument was Rs. 1,039.00 per month. Respondents contended that she would have been promoted as Head Clerk and thereafter Office Superintendent, Section Officer and Under Secretary to the Government. The claim was made for Rs. 4,00,000.00. Claim petition does not indicate how and on what basis this sum was arrived at. Tribunal, in the absence of the seniority list, was not inclined to accept the contention that she would have been successively promoted. Considering the scale of pay enjoyed by the deceased, Tribunal fixed her average income from her job from the date of accident till date of retirement at Rs. 1500/- per month. On the basis that she had 25 years of service left, Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that her total future income till retirement would be Rs. 4,50,000.00 and the pension she would have drawn, at Rs. 920.00 per month for a period of 7 years, would be Rs. 77,280.00 and fixed the total loss of income on account of her death at Rs. 5,27,280.00 deducting the amount necessary for her expenditure till date of retirement at Rs. 300.00 per month. Net loss of income was estimated at Rs. 4,12,080.00. Deducting 20 per cent on account of lump sum payment, compensation was fixed at Rs. 3,00,000.00. According to the appellant, the Tribunal did not follow any legal principle in determining the compensation and the same is extravagantly excessive.

(3.) While determining just compensation in a case of fatal accident, Tribunal must have regard to the principles referred to in Ss. 1A and 2 of the Fatal Accident Act, and the law of Torts. In Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC l, the Supreme Court considered the principles underlying the provisions of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855. Section 1 contemplates damages recoverable for the benefit of persons mentioned therein in respect of loss sustained by them. Compensation u/S. 2 goes to the benefit of the estate, based on loss to the estate including loss of expectation of life. Beneficiaries under the two provisions may or may not be identical. Since the claims under the two provisions are based on different causes of actions, Supreme court indicated that prima facie claimants, whether same or different, would be entitled to recover compensation separately under both the heads. But where the claimants under both the heads synchronize in respect of a particular head or sub-head, damages cannot be awarded twice over. Compensation awarded under one head should be taken into account while estimating the compensation under any head under the other provision. Supreme Court illustrated this principle in paragraph 11 of the judgment taking 'X' as the income of the deceased and 'Y' as the yearly expenditure by him on his dependents and 'Z' as his saving in the year. Capitalised value of the income spent on the dependants, i.e. 'Y' subject to relevant deductions, would be the pecuniary loss sustained by the dependants. Capitalised value of the saving i.e. 'Z' subject to relevant deductions, would be loss caused to the estate. If the claimants under both the provisions are the same and got compensation for the entire loss caused to the estate, they cannot claim again under the head of personal loss the capitalised income that might have been spent on them. If they obtain compensation under S. 1, to that extent there should be deduction in their claim under S. 2, thereby avoiding duplication. These broad principles would be applicable to cases before M.A.C. Tribunal also.