Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2455 (RAJ)

Mahendra Singh v. Narain Singh

2008-11-07

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. Mr. Kachhawa appears for the respondents. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the case was heard finally. 4. The injured appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 15th July, 2006 passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,36,728/- in respect of injury and permanent disability of 30.20% sustained by him in a motor accident, which took place on 6th January, 2002. 5. The sole contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has committed an illegality in not awarding the compensation under the head of physical pain and mental agony. He contended that looking to 30.20% permanent disability, a reasonable amount of compensation under the aforesaid head ought to have been allowed, therefore, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be modified to that extent by enhancing the amount of compensation. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents contested the appeal and contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,36,728/- under the different heads, as mentioned in the impugned award, which cannot be said to be inadequate or meager amount looking to the nature of injuries and percentage of permanent disability sustained by the appellant, therefore, no interference in it is called for. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award and record of the Tribunal. So far as age, income of the appellant and multiplier used in the present case are concerned, the same have not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant, but his only grievance is about not awarding the compensation in respect of physical pain and mental agony. The learned Tribunal while deciding issue no. 4 has determined the age of injured in between 20 to 25 and as per second schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, applied the multiplier of 17. There was no documentary evidence in support of income of the appellant but the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000/- per month and consequently calculated the amount by applying the multiplier of 17 and thereafter 30% of it as per his permanent disability, awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,83,600/- under the head of loss of income. 3,000/- per month and consequently calculated the amount by applying the multiplier of 17 and thereafter 30% of it as per his permanent disability, awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,83,600/- under the head of loss of income. The appellant sustained total four injuries as per injury report Ex.-2, out of which three injuries were simple in nature and one injury was found to be grievous as per X-ray report Ex-3. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 1,000/- each for simple injuries i.e. Rs. 3,000/- for three simple injuries and Rs. 5,000/- for one grievous injury, total Rs. 8000/- under this head. The appellant remained admitted for 36 days, therefore, at the rate of 200/- per day, a sum of Rs. 7200/- has been awarded for attendant. Rs. 600/- has been awarded for transportation charges. As per medical bills a sum of Rs. 28,328/- has been awarded. Apart from above, the Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 9000/- for loss of three months' income. The Tribunal is required to pass an award in respect of compensation under Section 168 of the Act, which appears to be just and reasonable. Although after awarding the amount under the head of 'loss of income', there was no need to award further amount of Rs. 9000/- for three months' loss, but in view of the fact that there is no cross appeal or cross objection on behalf of the respondents, I am not inclined to reduce the said amount, but treat this amount under the head of physical pain and mental agony. 8. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the present case, the income, number of injuries and percentage of permanent disability sustained by the appellant, I find that amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable and no further enhancement is necessary to be made in it. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. 10. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******