Case: Tara Kakati Smt. and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others

Leave granted. This appeal is by the mother and two sisters of the deceased Kanak Kakati who died as a result of an accident caused by a bus belonging to the respondent Surendra Nath Choudhary. The insurance company is the respondent in the appeal. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari, came to the conclusion that the accident took place because of the negligence of the bus driver. The Tribunal estimated the average income of the deceased at Rs. 510 and further came to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence that he used to give Rs. 300 per month to his mother. The deceased was a bachelor. Adopting the multiplier of 20, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 70, 000 as compensation to the mother, and adding another sum of Rs. 5000 a total of Rs. 77, 000 was awarded to the mother. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 5000 each to the two sisters. The Tribunal declined to award any interest. The High Court reduced the compensation awarded to the mother to Rs. 36, 000 and set aside the award so far as the sisters are concerned. The High Court interfered with the award of the Tribunal on the following reasoning : "Of the 3 claimants, mother alone is the heir of the deceased. The sisters, therefore, cannot claim any compensation on account of loss of economic support. It is stated at the Bar, that at the time of accident the deceased was aged 24 years and the mother was aged 40 years. Mothers age appears to be underestimated. Having fixed the average income of the deceased at Rs. 510 p.m. the Tribunal assessed that the deceased would have contributed Rs. 300 p.m. for the expense of the mother. This appears to be absolutely erroneous. It could not be held that out of a monthly income of Rs. 510, he would have contributed Rs. 300 p.m. to the mother alone. At the time of the accident, the deceased was a bachelor. In course of time he would have married and would have raised his own family in which case the contribution of the mother would have come down. The Tribunal did not take this important factor into consideration. The multiplier adopted also appears to be excessive inasmuch as the bank rate would be one per cent per month. Adopting contribution of Rs. 200 per month and multiplier of 15, compensation payable to the mother would be only Rs. 36, 000, instead of Rs. 72, 000. Additional award of Rs. 15, 000 has not been justified on any ground. Thus, we are satisfied that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and has more than compensated the mother for failure to award interest." * We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in reaching the conclusion that the deceased could not have contributed Rs. 300 per month to his mother for expenses. The Tribunal based its conclusion on the evidence produced before it. The High Court did not discuss the evidence and in a cryptic manner came to the conclusion that the contribution of Rs. 300 per month could not have been made. The High Court further fell into patent error in reaching the conclusion that since the sisters were not the heirs, they were not entitled to compensation. The mother being a widow and the sisters being unmarried, the deceased was performing his duties towards his family.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in reaching the conclusion that the deceased could not have contributed Rs. 300 per month to his mother for expenses. The Tribunal based its conclusion on the evidence produced before it. The High Court did not discuss the evidence and in a cryptic manner came to the conclusion that the contribution of Rs. 300 per month could not have been made. The High Court further fell into patent error in reaching the conclusion that since the sisters were not the heirs, they were not entitled to compensation. The mother being a widow and the sisters being unmarried, the deceased was performing his duties towards his family.