Quantum of compensation of Rs.20,91,300/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5%, awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased C. Mano, in M.C.O.P.No.253 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Court of Small Causes), Chennai, is challenged on the grounds inter alia that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, awarded as consortium to the wife is on the higher side. Further contention has been made that a sum of Rs.6 lakhs awarded under the head loss of love and affection to three minor children, is also excessive. Except the above no other challenge is made. 2. Heard the Caveator on record. Mrs.J.Radhika for Mr.P.Ravichandran, fairly agreed that compensation awarded under the above heads require reduction. Notwithstanding the above, she submitted that Tribunal ought to have awarded a just and reasonable compensation under the heads transportation and damages to clothes.
3. Inviting the attention of this Court to the claim made towards damages to the cart, as Rs.1 lakh and damages to two bullocks, Rs.1 lakh, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants prayed for a reasonable compensation, for the above.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
5. In Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others reported in 2013(3) CTC 883, the Hon'ble Apex Court, held as follows:
“In legal parlance, 'Consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non- pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for Loss of Consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By Loss of Consortium, the Courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the Courts award atleast Rupees one lakh for Loss of Consortium.”
6. At the time of accident, deceased was aged 38 years. Respondent No.1/wife of the deceased was 31 years. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court stated supra, consortium of Rs.1,50,000/- appears to be slightly on the higher side. So also, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs each, awarded to the children, is on the higher side. Therefore, there would be a reduction of Rs.50,000/- under the head loss of consortium and Rs.3 lakhs under the head loss of love and affection.
7. As rightly pointed out by the respondents/claimants, Tribunal has failed to award a just and reasonable compensation under the head transportation of the corpse, from the place occurrence to hospital and after post mortem, to the place of residence, for the purpose of funeral/obsequies ceremonies. A sum of Rs.15,000/-, would be just and reasonable. Though respondents/claimants have sought for compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the damages to bullocks, under the head damages to bullocks, reading of Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 indicates that there could be an adjudication of claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or death. Under Section 166 of the said Act, an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made -
a. by the person who has sustained the injury; or
b. by the owner of the property; or
c. where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be; or
d. by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
8. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Kalappa Channappa Hanchimani [III (2005) ACC 104], the Karnataka High Court has held that bullocks have to be treated as living being on par with human being. Bullocks cannot be treated as property for purposes of Section 147(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Paragraph 8 of the judgment reads as follows:
"As per the definition of 'property' as noted above, goods carried in the motor vehicle also constitute the definition of 'property'. For that it is to be noted that these bullocks are not bullocks being carried in the motor vehicle and another aspect, namely, in the definition itself it is referred to 'property' that is being also carried on the roads, bridges, culverts, causeways, trees posts and milestones. The definition of 'property' is exhaustive which is defined in the Concise Law Dictionary refers to every species of property and further it is noted at pages 680 and 681 of the Concise Law Dictionary that the word is a generic term for all that a person has domain over and, however, may be the bullocks are treated as the property of a man in the literal sense but for all practical purposes the animals are to be treated as having its own existence, it cannot be treated as if it is an object. The bullocks have to be treated as a living being on par with the human being and placing the liability on the insurer instead of treating the same as either as object or any other movable or immovable property. I am of the considered opinion that these bullocks cannot be exhaustively treated as mere property for purposes of Section 147(2)(b). "
9. What has been claimed in the petition is damages to bullocks. Taking note of the fact that bullock cart was hit from behind, there would have been some damage to the bullock cart, which we estimate as Rs.25,000/- and accordingly, award a sum as against the claim of Rs.1 lakh. Now, after reworking, compensation due and payable to the legal representatives of the deceased/respondents as hereunder:-
Loss of contribution to the family ... Rs.13,16,250.00 Loss of consortium ... Rs. 1,00,000.00 Loss of love and affection ... Rs. 3,00,000.00 Funeral expenses ... Rs. 25,000.00 Damages to bullocks ... Rs. 25,000.00 Transportation ... Rs. 15,000.00 Damages to clothes and articles ... Rs. 2,000.00 ------------------- Rs.17,83,250.00 --------------------
Rounded off to Rs.17,83,300/-.
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.20,91,300.00 On appeal, compensation determined by this Court is Rs.17,83,300.00 --------------------
Reduced amount Rs. 3,08,000.00 ------------ -------
10. Mr.Lokesh, learned counsel for the Transport Corporation submitted that so far, no deposit has been made, except the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/-.
11. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Kancheepuram, is directed to deposit the balance amount, less the statutory deposit, in two equated instalments, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.253 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Reduction is made from the share apportioned to the wife. {Wife – Rs.2,83,300 (Rs.5,91,300 – 3,08,000/-) and for the children/respondents 2 to 4 - Rs.5,00,000/- each, as awarded by the tribunal}.
12. Share of the minors shall be deposited in any of the Nationalised Bank, under the scheme of fixed deposit, initially for a period of three years. Mother/next friend M.Rathi is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued, once in three months. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
13. Post on 30/6/2017, for reporting compliance.
mvs.
Note: Issue order copy on 19/6/2017 (S.M.K.,J) (M.G.R.,J) 9th June 2017 Index: yes/No website: Yes/No To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
S.MANIKUMAR,J a n d M. GOVINDARAJ,J mvs.
C.M.A. No.1656 of 2017 9/6/2017 http://www.judis.nic.in