JUDGMENT
S.C. Mohapatra, J.
1. Claimants are the appellants in these two appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (for short ‘the Act’). As both the appeals arise out of the same accident, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. On 14-4-1977, in the night the truck bearing registration No. ORU 9476 of the Police Department caused an accident in which Debi Sahaya Gupta and his daughter Usha received fatal injuries to succumb at the spot. On that account two claim petitions were filed. The mother, widow, son and three daughters of Debi Sahaya filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Act. All others except Kasturi Devi, the mother of Debi Sahaya, filed another claimed petition for the death of Usha Devi.
3. It has been found that deceased Debi Sahaya was a partner in a firm having one-fourth interest wherefrom he was contributing to the family. Deceased Usha Devi aged 10 years was reading in the school. The death of Debi Sahaya and Usha Devi was on account of negligent driving of the vehicle. No appeal having been preferred by the respondent, the accident on account of negligent driving of the truck has become final. These two appeals have been filed challenging the quantum of compensation awarded.
4. In respect of death of Debi Sahaya Gupta the amount of compensation claimed was Rs. 2,41,000/- on the following heads:
(i) Family dependency adding Rs. 1,000/- Rs. 1,80,000/-
per month for 15 years
(ii) Loss of expectation of life Rs. 10,000/-
(iii) Pecuniary loss suffered by the claimants
including marriage expenses of two daughters Rs. 50,000/-
(iv) Funeral expenses Rs. 1,000/-
--------------
Total Rs. 2,41,000/-
For the death of Usha Devi, the amount of compensation claimed was Rs. 10,000/- on the following heads:
(i) Loss of happiness, company and affection Rs. 5,000/-
(ii) Compensation for mental pain, agony and grief
suffered on account of death of the child Rs. 5,000/-
--------------
Total Rs. 10,000/-
5. The Tribunal found the annual income of deceased Debi Sahaya at Rs. 9,000/- and assessed the annual contribution at Rs. 6,000/-. It found that the only source of earning was the profit out of the partnership business. However it refused to award any amount as compensation to his widow and children on the ground that there is no loss of dependency since they would get the same profit which is not lost.
6. Mr. B.P. Ray, the learned Counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that profit in a business would depend upon the acumen of the partners and on the drath of the bread earner it may not be possible to get the same profit. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation without taking into consideration the estate inherited by the legal representatives. If there would have been material in support of such a claim, the submission might have been sound. There is, however, no material as to who was managing the business and how the profit on account of the efficiency of the deceased was lost. In the circumstances, the view of the Tribunal is correct and is confirmed.
7. Mr. B.P. Ray assailed the quantum awarded towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. In the absence of any material, the Tribunal made a guess work. No cogent ground has been indicated how the determination is unjust. Accordingly, the same is confirmed.
8. Mr. B.P. Ray submitted that no amount has been awarded towards funeral expenses. In any family in India the funeral rites are observed for which there is bound to be expenses. The amount claimed is Rs. 1,000/- only. The same is allowed.
9. On account of the death of Usha Devi, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded towards loss of love and affection. Mr. B.P. Ray, the learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the amount of compensation determined in this case is grossly inadequate and no reasonable man would award this compensation. He relied upon a decision reported in 1983 A.C.J. 650, Allah Bakhas and Ors. v. Dhirendranath Panda and Anr. where for the death of a minor girl aged only eight months, compensation of Rs. 8,000/- was awarded. It was stated that the potentialities of service of a girl in a lower middle class family had been lost and accordingly compensation of Rs. 8,000/- would bad just. In the present case the girl was aged 10 years and was reading in the school. No evidence has been led to indicate the service which was likely to be rendered by her. The family is also not a lower middle class family. She comes under the upper middle class family, Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 5,000/- granted towards loss of compnsation of the girl to the mother is justified.
10. Mr. B.P. Ray, submitted that in spite of the award, the State Government has not yet paid the compensation, Mr. J. Behead, the Additional Standing Counsel is not in a position to controvert the same. The accident occurred in the year 1977. About ten years have passed in the meantime. The award is of the year 1981. If the amount of compensation would have been received, it could have been invested in Savings Certificate and could have been doubled by now. Thus, on account of non-payment, the said benefit has been lost. Award of interest at the rate of 15% per annum would be just in the circumstances. The same is payable from the date of application till the date of payment.
11. In the result, M.A. No. 98 of 1982 is allowed in part and M.A. No. 97 of 1982 is dismissed, subject to the modification on the question of interest.
There shall be no order for costs.