Human Life Cannot Be Measured In Terms Of Income Potential Alone; Bombay HC Enhances Compensation In Accident That Killed A 10-Yr-Old Girl

Justice Anuja Prabhudessai set aside the judgement of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara dated March 20, 1996 wherein a compensation of Rs.51,800 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum was awarded to Devapa Maskar, father of the deceased child and both her minor siblings. Appeal against the said judgement was allowed.

The Tribunal has directed the Maharashtra State Transport Corporation to deposit 75% of the total compensation along with proportionate interest thereon, by holding that it was a case of contributory negligence.

Case Background

On April 27, 1990, deceased Savita and her mother were traveling from Bombay to Kolhapur by the offending MSRTC bus. The said bus dashed against an oncoming tractor trolly bearing at Khodashi, Kolhapur. Savita and her mother died as a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident. The appellants alleged that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus.

Thus, the appellants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming total compensation of Rs.1,00,000.

MSRTC did not dispute the factum of accident. However, they denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ST bus and attributed negligence to the driver of the tractor trolly. In the alternative the respondent Corporation raised the plea of composite negligence and stated that the liability, if any, should be apportioned accordingly.

Finally, the Tribunal recorded a finding that it was a case of contributory negligence and hence directed MSRTC to pay Rs.38,550 being 75% of the total compensation with further direction and to the insurer of the tractor trolly to pay the balance 25% compensation with proportionate interest thereon.

Submissions

Advocate Kritika Pokale appeared on behalf of the appellants and argued that the tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future prospects. She further submitted that the appellant no.1 being the father of the deceased is also entitled for compensation for loss of filial consortium.

On the other hand, GS Hegde appeared for MSRTC and submitted that in a connected appeal, another single bench of the High Court has held that it was a clear case of composite negligence. This Court has further observed that the appellant-claimant is entitled to recover the entire compensation from the owner or insurer of any of the offending vehicles and that there was no necessity to apportion the inter-se liability of joint tort feasors.

This Court has given liberty to the Corporation to recover 25% from the owners or insurer of the tractor trolly involved in the accident, similar liberty can be given in this case Hegde said.

Judgment

Justice Prabhudessai noted how in another appeal arising from the same accident, involving death of the wife of the appellant no.1, High Court had referred to the apex court's judgement in Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. (2015) and upon considering the evidence on record, high court recorded a finding that the deceased had not contributed to the accident in any manner and it could never be a case of contributory negligence. It has been held that when the accident is caused due to negligence of joint tort feasors, it is a case of composite negligence and not contributory negligence, Court observed.

Further, Court noted how the Tribunal had awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs.25,000 without considering the fact that the deceased, though a student had the potential to earn income.

"The Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation towards loss of filial consortium or loss of estate. In my considered view, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable and hence it is necessary to compute the compensation on the basis of the binding principle and formula laid down by the Apex Court," Court said.

Thereafter, the bench cited apex court's decision in RK Malik & Anr vs. Kiran Pal & Ors. (2009), and quoted- "Human life cannot be measured only in terms of loss of earning or monetary losses alone. There are emotional attachments involved and a loss of a child can have a devastating effect on the family which can be easily visualised and understood…"

The bench further noted-

"No amount of compensation can alleviate intensity of pain and suffering or restore their devastated lives. But at the same, the court can only try to calculate the incalculable and endeavour to compensate them to the extent of payment of money."

Thus, after adding the potential income of the deceased, filial consortium that the deceased's father was entitled to and other expenses, Court determined the just compensation to be Rs.2,29,300 and noted that the appellants were entitled to recover the total compensation from MSRTC and gave the Corporation liberty to recover 25% from the owner of tractor trolly.