G. Rohini, J.@mdashThe claimant in MV OP No. 50 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, filed this appeal challenging the award with regard to the quantum of compensation granted for the death of his father in a motor accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The appellant herein filed MV OP No. 50 of 1989 u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the death of his father Dr. Purushotham Moses in a motor accident. According to the appellant-claimant on 6.8.1988 while the deceased was travelling in a Jeep along with one Rev. O. George Gnanayudham, a lorry bearing Regd. No. CAS 350 came at a high speed and dashed against the Jeep resulting in the instantaneous death of his father Dr. Purushotham Moses, as well as the other occupant of the vehicle, Rev, O. George Gnanayudham and the driver. The claimant contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Regd. No. CAS 350 which is insured with M/s New India Insurance company Limed, and therefore the owner of the lorry as well as the Insurance Company are Jointly and severally liable for the compensation claimed. It is further contended mat his deceased father who was aged 70 years at the time of accident was hale and healthy and was working as an Honorary Director and Treasurer of the Arogyavaram Medical Centre at Madanapalli on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,580/-. That apart he was also earning Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month as a Medical Practitioner. Thus he used to earn Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- per month. According to the claimant the father of the deceased lived up to the age of 104 years and his elder brother who is still alive is aged 82 years, and therefore as per the history of their family with regard to the longevity of life, but for the accident, the deceased would have lived for another 15 to 20 years. Hence he contended that he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,51,000/- towards loss of dependency and also a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of love affection. However, the claim was restricted to a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. It is also relevant to note that two married daughters of the deceased were impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 to the claim petition.
3. The dependants of Rev. O.George Gnanayudham who also died in the same accident filed MV OP No. 51 of 1989 claiming compensation and the said petition was also tried along with MV OP No. 50 of 1989 and both the petitions were decided by a common order by the Tribunal below.
4. In both the OPs the owner of the lorry bearing Regd No. CAS 350, who was made respondent No. 1, remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance company filed counter denying the averments in the claim petition and contending that the claims made are exorbitant and without any basis.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal below framed the following issues in MV OP No. 50 of 1989 for trial:
1. Whether the driver of the lorry No. CAS 350 MGV drove the said lorry on 6-8-1988 at about 6.00 a.m. at Nelavanka near Madnapuram village on N.H.7 road at a high speed rashly and negligently and caused the accident resulting in the death of the deceased.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom.
3. To what relief?
6. In support of the claim in OP No. 50 of 1989, the claimant examined himself as PW4. The elder brother of the deceased was examined as PW2. That apart, the claimant examined four other witnesses and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 documents in support of his claim. On behalf of the respondents none was examined. However, copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex. B1.
7. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal below held on issue No. 1 that the accident in question took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Regd. No. CAS 350 resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased.
8. On issue No. 2, regarding quantum of compensation, the Tribunal below held that since the claimant and the respondents 3 and 4 who are the married daughters of the deceased ceased to be the dependants on the deceased long before his death, they are entitled to compensation only for loss of estate and it is not necessary to assess the loss of dependency. Accordingly the Tribunal below held that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and the same shall be shared equally among the claimant and the respondents 3 and 4. The Tribunal below also awarded a further sum of Rs. 3,000/-towards expenses incurred for transporting the dead body of the deceased from the place of accident to his place of stay and thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 28,000/-together with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realisation making respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable for the same. The said order of the Tribunal below dated 21.1.1991 is assailed by the claimant in the present appeal.
9. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents.
10. Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal below is not Justified in denying the compensation claimed towards loss of dependency. According to the learned Counsel the claimant/appellant is entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency irrespective of the fact that he is not a dependent upon the earnings of the deceased at the time of his death in the accident.
11. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the Tribunal below has rightly taken into consideration the fact that the deceased was aged 70 years and particularly neither the claimant nor respondents 3 and 4 were dependents on the deceased at the time of the death, and therefore, the impugned order rejecting the claim towards loss of dependency is in accordance with law and the same does not warrant any interference.
12. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on the basis of the material on record, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are whether the appellant who is admittedly not a dependent upon the earnings of the deceased is entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency; and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
13. Admittedly, the appellant/claimant, who is the son of the deceased, is having his independent income and not a dependent on the deceased at the time of his death in the accident. The two other legal representatives of the deceased, who are impleaded as respondents 3 and 4, are his married daughters, who are also not dependent on the earnings of the deceased.
14. u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which corresponds to Section 110-A of the repealed Act of 1939 an application for compensation arising out of a motor accident has to be made, where the death has resulted from the accident, by the legal representatives of the deceased. The word legal representative is not defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, However, as defined u/s 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, legal representative means a person who in law represents the estate of the deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.
15. It is also pertinent to note that the criteria for determining the compensation is not specifically laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is in pari materia to Section 110-B of the repealed Act of 1939, authorises the Claims Tribunal to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. In other words, the claims Tribunal may grant such damages as it may think reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, which should commensurate to the loss caused to the legal representatives by reason of the death of the deceased.
16. It is a well settled principle of law that in determining just compensation in fatal accident cases the legal representatives are entitled to be compensated for the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased as well as the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of the family of the deceased.
Computation of damages under the head pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased includes loss of earnings, damages towards loss of personal property and damages for loss of expectation of life. It also includes the income of the deceased and possible savings he might have made to enrich the estate. The legal representatives who are entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased are undoubtedly entitled to claim compensation towards loss to the estate. However, the pecuniary loss suffered by I the legal representatives as a result of the death of the deceased always depends on the actual dependency and the pecuniary I benefit they were enjoying from the income of the deceased such as food, shelter, education and etc. The compensation payable towards loss of dependency must be the benefit which the dependents were enjoying and are expected to enjoy in future as a result of their dependency on the deceased. Therefore, though all the legal representatives of the deceased have a locus standi to file a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in order to get the compensation towards loss of dependency they have to further establish loss of pecuniary benefit being enjoyed by them as dependents on the deceased. Hence in my considered opinion when admittedly the claimant is not a dependent and is not enjoying any pecuniary benefit out of the earnings of the deceased, no compensation can be awarded under the head loss of dependency.
17. Similar view has been expressed by this Court as well as other High Courts in several cases. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. M. Ramulu 1988 ACJ 1450, this Court held that brother and sister of the deceased who are not dependents on the deceased are not entitled to seek compensation. In A.P.S.R.T.C. v. P. Raghavaiah, 1989 ACJ 622 (AP), the married daughters living separately from their mother are held to be not entitled to compensation on account of the death of their mother. In
18. In 19. The learned Counsel for the appellant in support of his contention placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. v. Sudhakar AIR 1977 SC 1189, wherein it was held that the husband is entitled to claim compensation for the death of the wife. The learned Counsel contends that the claimant in the said case, who was the husband of the deceased was drawing higher salary than the deceased, and though he was not dependent on wife''s income he was awarded compensation towards loss of dependency. It is pertinent to note that even in the said case, the correctness of the quantum of compensation awarded was decided on the basis of the contributions the deceased wife was making for household out of her income. 20. The facts in the present case are entirely different. Admittedly the deceased was not contributing anything out of his income for the benefit of his children. The claimant who deposed as PW4 stated that he is working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in MLL Hospital at Madanapalle and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 450/-. It is also clear from the evidence that respondents 3 and 4, daughters of the deceased were married long back and are living in gulf countries. Thus the claimant as well as the respondents 3 and 4 ceased to be dependents on the deceased long prior to the death of the deceased. It is also pertinent to note that there is neither a plea nor any evidence with regard to their dependency or atleast to show that the deceased was contributing anything out of his income for the benefit of his children. In the absence of any such evidence on the part of the claimants, the Tribunal below is justified in denying the compensation towards loss of dependency. The decision of the Supreme Court in M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. v. Sudhakar, ("supra) does not attract to the facts and circumstances of the case. 21. So far as the loss of estate is concerned, except the self-serving testimony of the claimant as PW4, the claimant did not produce any other evidence to show that the deceased was consistently contributing his savings to improve the estate to which the claimants and the respondents 3 and 4 have succeeded on the death of the deceased. In the circumstances Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal below towards loss of estate cannot be said to be inadequate. 22. For the reasons stated supra, I hold that the compensation of Rs. 25,000/-awarded by the Tribunal below towards loss of estate is just and reasonable. The Tribunal below has also awarded a further sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards incidental expenses for transporting the body of the deceased from the place of accident. That apart, the Tribunal below has also awarded interest at 12% pa., from the date of the petition till realisation. Viewing from any angle, the order under appeal cannot be said to be vitiated by any factual or legal infirmity, Hence, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 23. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
