Page 51 - DMGT306_MERCANTILE_LAWS_II

Mercantile Laws – II

Notes
The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased driver, Basavaraj filed a claim for
compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. They got nothing. The
Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act found and held that the accident
did not take place in course of employment and rejected the claim for compensation.
The heirs of the four occupants of the car, dying in the accident (including the present
appellants) and the fifth passenger suffering injuries in the accident sought compensation
before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Their claims proved to be equally barren.
The appellants took the matter in appeal before the High Court where they were equally
unsuccessful. They are now in appeal before this Court by special leave.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants raised a very limited issue. He submitted
that in any event the appellants were entitled to the ‘no fault compensation’ as provided
under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but they were denied even that by the
Tribunal for reasons that are totally unsustainable in law.
We are, therefore, required to see how and why the appellants were denied compensation
under section 140 of the Act and how far the denial was justified. The appellants filed a
claim petition (MVC 1404/92) before the District Judge and MACT, Chitrandurga under
section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of Nagaraj. The
appellants’ petition, along with four other claim petitions (filed by the heirs of the other
three occupants dying in that car accident and the fifth occupant who suffered injuries in
that accident), was disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order dated May 9, 1996.
From the order of the Tribunal, it appears that in four of the five cases before it, including
MVC 1404/92, IAs were filed seeking interim compensation of rupees twenty five thousand
( 25,000.00) only (as the law stood at that time) in terms of section 140 of the Act. For some
reason, however, no order was passed on the IAs and the Tribunal proceeded to examine
the claimants’ claim on merits under section 166 of the Act.

The Tribunal, in its order summarized the cases of each of the five claimants separately,
noting the facts peculiar to the four deceased and the fifth injured occupant of the ill fated
car. It also framed the issues arising in each case separately. In regard to Nagaraj, the son
of the appellants, it noted that at the time of his death he was eighteen years old. According
to the appellants, he worked at a sweetmeat stall and earned rupees eight hundred
( 800.00) only per month. He was going to Anjaneya temple in the car being driven by
Basavaraj and in the accident he died on the spot. The appellants claimed compensation of
rupees one lakh ( 1,00,000.00) only.

The first two issues in the case of Nagaraj, as in all the other cases, were answered by the
Tribunal in the affirmative. On issue no.3 appellant no.1, the father of the deceased Nagaraj
stated on oath that his son was aged eighteen years and used to work in the hotel of one
Siddappa who paid him rupees thirty ( 30.00) only per day, but the Tribunal disbelieved
him and rejected his testimony. On the basis of the post mortem report, the Tribunal held
that Nagaraj, at the time of his death, was aged about fifteen years. It further held that
there was no evidence to show that at the time of his death Nagaraj earned anything,
pointing out that in paragraph 22 of the claim petition nothing material was mentioned
about the loss of earning due to his death. Then, rather gratuitously it fixed the amount of
compensation at rupees thirty thousand plus two thousand ( 30,000.00 + 2,000.00)
observing as follows:

”Hence the maximum compensation that can be granted to the petitioner herein would be
only about 30,000 as being just and reasonable and a sum of 2,000 toward funeral and
obsequious expenses etc. and therefore the petitioners are granted sum total compensation
amount of 32,000.”

46 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY