Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2392 (RAJ)

Suwa Lal Chhipi v. A. Chandra Naydu

2008-10-23

N.K.JAIN

body2008
Judgment Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These two appeals arise out of same incident and are directed against common award passed by the Tribunal, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of finally by this common order. 3. The appellants Suwa Lal and Ramjinish Kumar, both, have preferred two separate appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the amount of compensation against impugned award dated 22nd March, 1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total amount of compensation of Rs. 66,000/- in favour of injured appellant Suwa Lal and Rs. 38,700/- in favour of appellant Ramjinish Kumar. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1350/1999 4. The learned counsel for the appellant Suwa Lal contended that appellant was 40 yeas old and was earning Rs. 3500/- per month. He suffered 24.10% permanent disability. The Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing his loss of income by applying the multiplier system, but awarded only a lumpsum amount of Rs. 50,000/- for injuries and mental and physical agony etc. He contended that even if the minimum wage i.e. Rs. 73/- per day is taken into consideration in place of Rs. 3500/-per month, as pleaded in the application, then the said amount comes to Rs. 26,280/- per year (73 X 30 X 12). Looking to the age of appellant, the multiplier of 16 is applicable and in view of permanent disability of 24.10%, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,01,335/-. He further contended that Tribunal committed an illegality in not awarding the interest on the amount of compensation. He, therefore, contended that amount of compensation may be enhanced under the head of loss of income. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that Tribunal is required to pass an award which is just and reasonable and whatever the mode for assessment of income or multiplier is adopted, the same has to be taken into consideration in the background of just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, even if the mode of multiplier is not adopted, the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 50,000/-. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 10,500/- for loss of three months' income; Rs. 5500/- for diet and medicines, therefore, the amount of Rs. 66,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 6. Therefore, even if the mode of multiplier is not adopted, the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 50,000/-. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 10,500/- for loss of three months' income; Rs. 5500/- for diet and medicines, therefore, the amount of Rs. 66,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award as well as the record of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/-towards permanent disability, injuries and for mental and physical agony; Rs. 10,500/- has been awarded for loss of income of three months, Rs. 5500/- has further been awarded for nutritious diet and medicines as per bill produced in the case. 7. Admittedly, the appellant has not placed on record any documentary evidence to show the income of the appellant at Rs. 3500/-per month. However, if the minimum wage i.e. Rs. 73/- per day is taken into consideration, then it comes to Rs. 2190/- per month and Rs. 26,280/- per annum. If multiplier of 16 is applied and it is divided by 24.1% on the basis of permanent disability certificate, then this amount comes to Rs. 1,01,335/-. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Another ((2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 197) has held 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. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. The expression “just” denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. 9. Para 15 of the judgment is as under: “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 to the injury. 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 to 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 the 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 be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a wind fall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate 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 on 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 reasonable-ness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just.” 10. In view of above, it is clear that every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of just and reasonable compensation. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 66,000/-under all heads. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonable-ness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just.” 10. In view of above, it is clear that every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of just and reasonable compensation. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 66,000/-under all heads. However, after considering the age and income of the deceased, the percentage of permanent disability, I find that amount of compensation awarded in the present case is inadequate and in my view the ends of justice would meet if the total amount of compensation under all heads is awarded in lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/0 (Rs. One Lakh). 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation of Rs. 66,000/- (Rs. Sixty Six Thousand) is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) as lumpsum amount of compensation under all heads. The amount of Rs. 66,000/- will carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. The enhanced amount i.e. Rs. 34,000/- will also carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of award passed by the Tribunal i.e. 22nd March, 1999 till the date of realization. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 959/1999 12. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the loss of income of the appellant by applying the multiplier system and committed an illegality in awarding only a lumpsum amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of income and mental and physical agony. He further contended that the Tribunal committed an illegality in not awarding the interest on the amount of award. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that even if the loss of income of injured appellant is calculated by adopting the multiplier system and even if his income is calculated treating his minimum wage @ 73/- per day, then it comes to Rs. 2190/- per month and Rs. 26,280/- per year. If multiplier of 16 is applied and it is divided by 6% in view of his permanent disability certificate, then the said amount comes to Rs. 30600/-, whereas the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 30,000/-. He, therefore, contended that amount of award awarded in the present case is just and reasonable. 14. 2190/- per month and Rs. 26,280/- per year. If multiplier of 16 is applied and it is divided by 6% in view of his permanent disability certificate, then the said amount comes to Rs. 30600/-, whereas the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 30,000/-. He, therefore, contended that amount of award awarded in the present case is just and reasonable. 14. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment and record of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has observed that as per permanent disability certificate Ex. 70, the appellant sustained 5.40 permanent disability. He produced medical bills Ex. 73 to 80 for Rs. 803.40 paise. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards permanent disability and mental and physical agony; Rs. 1200/- has been awarded for medicines and nutritious diet; Rs. 7500/- has further been awarded for loss of three months' income. Thus, total amount of Rs. 38,700/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the appellant. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Another has held 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. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. The expression “just” denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. 16. In view of above, it is clear that even if the multiplier system has not been adopted for assessing the loss of income, the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to the same. The appellant has sustained only 5.40% permanent disability, therefore, looking to the age and income of the appellant, the nature of injury and percentage of permanent disability, I find that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and I do not find any illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal. So far as the award of interest is concerned, I find that appellant is entitled to get interest @ 6% on the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of application till the date of realization. 17. So far as the award of interest is concerned, I find that appellant is entitled to get interest @ 6% on the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of application till the date of realization. 17. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and it is directed that respondents shall pay interest to the appellant @ 6% p.a. on the amount of award i.e. Rs. 38,700/- from the date of application till the date of realization of the said amount. 18. Both the appeals stand disposed of, in the manner as indicated above with no order as to costs. 19. Since two appeals have been disposed of by this common order, therefore, the registry is directed to place a copy of it in connected appeal also.