Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1820 (DEL)

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Prem Bahadur

2007-10-09

KAILASH GAMBHIR

body2007
Judgment KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral: 1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned award on two grounds. Firstly that the interest rate granted in favour of the respondent is exorbitant in comparison to the rate which was applicable on the relevant date of the award in question. Secondly, the appellant is aggrieved on the grant of excessive amount of compensation towards conveyance, special diet and mental pain and suffering. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Ms.Manisha Tyagi, counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant should have awarded interest not exceeding 6% as the said rate of interest was the banking rate on the date of the said award. Counsel further contends that excessive amount of Rs.5,000/-towards special diet, Rs.3,000 towards conveyance and Rs.10,000/-towards mental pain and suffering were awarded. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 ACJ 1131, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and Anr.. Per contra, counsel for the respondent contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the award passed by the Tribunal. She further contends that the interest awarded in favour of the respondent is on the lower side. She also contends that a meagre amount towards conveyance, mental pain and suffering was awarded. Counsel contends that a child has received serious injuries in his right leg which lead to his permanent disability to the extent of 28%. Counsel, therefore, contends that the award is not excessive. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. I do not find that there is any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the interest at the rate of 9% and I do not find that the rate of interest on the relevant date of passing the award in any way is excessive or unreasonable. It is no doubt true that rate of interest has been granted keeping in view the bank rate of interest and the same cannot remain static. In the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. It is no doubt true that rate of interest has been granted keeping in view the bank rate of interest and the same cannot remain static. In the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1, the Supreme Court had granted 10% interest and while in the case cited by counsel for the respondent, the Supreme Court has reduced the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% and in some of the recent judgments, the Honble Supreme Court has granted 9% interest on the compensation amount. I, therefore, do not feel inclined to interfere in the present appeal simply because the Tribunal has granted 9% interest on the award amount. Even otherwise award of 9% interest on the compensation amount cannot be treated as either excessive or arbitrary. The plea of the appellant on this count is rejected. I also do not find that any excess amount towards conveyance, special diet and mental pain and suffering has been awarded. The amount awarded has to be just and reasonable. 6. In this regard in the judgment of Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty, (2003) 7 SCC 197 , the Honble Supreme Court has explained that the compensation should be just and fair. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced as under: 15. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which to it appears to be just. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. Bodily injury is nothing but a deprivation which entitles the claimant to damages. The quantum of damages fixed should be in accordance with the injury. An injury may bring about many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential losses. A person becomes entitled to damages for mental and physical loss, his or her life may have been shortened or that he or she cannot enjoy life, which has been curtailed because of physical handicap. The normal expectation of life is impaired. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. The normal expectation of life is impaired. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be just and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be just compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of just compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression which appears to it to be just, a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression just denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness. If it is not so, it cannot be just. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award. Dismissed. Application dismissed.