Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2486 (RAJ)

Kailash Chand Saini v. Dharmendra Singh

2008-11-11

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. 3. The respondents are represented by their counsel. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the case is heard finally. 4. The injured appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 26.9.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,02,665/- in his favour. 5. The only submission urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the income of the appellant at least @ Rs. 84/- per day payable to skilled labour. He contended that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed a sum of Rs. 73/- per day only as his income, which is minimum wage meant for unskilled labour whereas the appellant is operator, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of income, may be enhanced accordingly. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the amount of compensation awarded vide impugned award in the present case is just and reasonable looking to the nature of injury and percentage of permanent disability. He further contended that apart from compensation under the head of loss of income, the Tribunal has also awarded compensation under other heads which includes medical bills, loss of income for the period the appellant remained under treatment. Therefore, no interference is required by this court in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award and the record of the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal while considering the relevant issue regarding quantum of compensation, has considered the oral and documentary evidence in respect of the injury, permanent disability and the income of the appellant and only thereafter the amount of compensation has been awarded under different heads. So far as the income part is concerned, it was pleaded in the claim petition that the appellant was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month but no salary certificate was placed on record. In absence of any documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal assessed Rs. 25,000/- per year as his income on the basis of minimum wage i.e. Rs. 73/- per day. The minimum wage Rs. 7,000/- per month but no salary certificate was placed on record. In absence of any documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal assessed Rs. 25,000/- per year as his income on the basis of minimum wage i.e. Rs. 73/- per day. The minimum wage Rs. 73/- per day is meant for skilled labour or unskilled labour is not proved from any document on record. The concerned notification was neither placed on record before the learned Tribunal nor before this court. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason for not accepting the finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard. 8. The learned Tribunal was fully justified in assessing the annual income of the appellant. So far as the age of the appellant and the multiplier applied are concerned, the same have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant also. The appellant suffered 16.08% permanent disability and accordingly Rs. 71,000/- was awarded on the loss of income. The learned Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 13,665/- towards medical bills, Rs. 4,000/- for loss of income for the period, the appellant remained under treatment, Rs. 6,000/- for 15 days during which the appellant remained admitted in hospital, Rs. 8,000/- has further been awarded for physical pain and mentally agony. Thus, total compensation of Rs. 1,02,665/- has been awarded in the case. 9. The Tribunal is required to pass an award under section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 which appears to be just and reasonable. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty - (2003) 7 SCC 197 , held that 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 Hon'ble Apex Court further held that 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 reproduced as under:- "15. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that 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 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 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 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 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. 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. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC ( AIR 1998 SC 3191 ) ." 11. In view of the 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. *******