JUDGMENT
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. Husband of Vemula Ramana (the deceased), a coolie in road laying, who received burn injuries due to spilling of boiling asphalt on her, as a result of the driver of the bus bearing No. APQ-4677 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, dashing against the tar boiler used in laying of black top road, due to his rash and negligent driving and succumbing to those injuries, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 90,000/- from respondents and examined himself as PW-1 and two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A4 on his behalf. First respondent chose to remain ex parte, both before the Tribunal and in this Court. Second respondent who filed a counter contesting the claim, did not adduce oral evidence, but marked Ex.B-1 by consent.
2. The Tribunal, after having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus and that the deceased died as a result of the burn injuries suffered by her in the accident, awarded Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the claimant. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him, the claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhanced compensation.
3. Since this is an appeal preferred by the claimant seeking enhanced compensation; the only point for consideration is to what compensation is the appellant entitled for?
4. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the respondent challenged the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 that the death of the deceased occurred as a result of the accident. It is his contention that since the deceased received bum injuries, and since the evidence of PW-3 shows that the deceased did not come up for follow-up treatment, and since the appellant did not produce the Post Mortem Report of the deceased, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was due to the burn injuries suffered by her in the accident.
5. As stated earlier, first respondent chose to remain ex parte. Second respondent, who is the insurer and who has not obtained permission from the Tribunal to take all the pleas open to the insured, has no locus standi to question the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 1. That apart on merits also, I find no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the second respondent that the death of the deceased was not due to the burn injuries received by her in the accident because the evidence of PW-3 clearly shows that the deceased was admitted into the hospital on 27-2-1992 with forty per cent burn injuries due to spilling of coal tar, when a bus bearing No. APQ-4677 hit the boiler into which the tar was being loaded, and was having burn injuries over the lower and upper limbs with blebs, black in colour with patches of burns with skin peeling off on the lateral side of the chest and right thigh and with, burns over the face and neck and that she who was discharged on 27-4-1992, and she appears to have died on 8-7-1992, and it was possible that her death was due to the burn injuries sustained by her in the accident. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the deceased did not die due to burn injuries and must have died due to some other reasons.
6. It should be borne in mind that usually 30 per cent of burns are sufficient to cause death. At Page 321 of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Dr. Bernard Knight, (fifth edition 1987), it is stated as follows.
“To estimate the amount of the body involved, the “Rule of Nine” may be employed, which is a rough estimate of the area of burns. The head and each arm are allotted 9% of the body surface, 18% each for the front and back of the trunk and 9% each for the front or back of each leg. Using this rough estimate, burns totalling 30% or more of the surface area are associated with a very poor prognosis, especially in old people.”
It is well known that victim of extensive burn injuries is susceptible to infection and septicemia which causes death. Since the deceased was a road-laying worker, obviously she would have lived in very unhygienic condition. So, the finding of the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of PW-3 that the deceased died due to the burn injuries suffered by her in the accident, needs no interference, that too at the instance of the second respondent.
7. The evidence of PW-2, the employer of the deceased, shows that the deceased was being paid Rs. 40/- per day. The case of the appellant also is that the deceased was being paid Rs. 40/- per day. i.e., Rs. 1,200/- per month. Even if the income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 900/- per month, and her, contribution, either by way of services or the earnings through cooli work to the appellant is taken as Rs. 600/-per month or Rs. 7,200/- per annum, since the deceased and the appellant also, were aged below 25 years at the time of death of the deceased the multiplier would be ’17’ and, the pecuniary damages payable come to Rs. 7,200/- x 17 Rs. 1,22,400/-.
8. Apart from pecuniary damages, appellant also would be entitled to non-pecuniary damages and loss of consortium.
9. Therefore, the claim of Rs. 90,000/-as compensation for the death of the deceased made by the appellant is quite reasonable and so, he is entitled to Rs. 90,000/- as damages from the respondents. The point is answered accordingly.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed
and an award is passed for Rs. 90,000/- in favour of the appellant against the respondents jointly and severally with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit into Court with costs in the Tribunal. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal.