Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 360 (RAJ)

Kana Ram Jat v. Nathu Singh

2012-02-08

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement against the award dated 19.9.2000 passed in MAC No. 628/1995. 2. The brief facts of the case according to claim petition are that 7.3.1995, deceased Bheru was going to his village on Motor Cycle when he was hit by Bus No.RNP 2436 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 - Nathu Singh. It was stated that deceased Bheru was 15 years of age and he usecd to earn Rs.1,500/- per month being tailor and hence a total compensation of Rs. 6,77,000/- was claimed but the learned Tribunal has awarded only a meager amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record, specially the impugned judgment and award. 4. Much has been said in the memo of appeal but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that taking notional income of the deceased, the compensation awarded is less and it should be enhanced looking to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case o R.K. Malik & Anr. vs. Kiran Pal & Ors. ( AIR 2009 SC 2506 ). It has been stated that paras Nos. 16 and 17 are relevant for deciding the present controversy and it has been submitted that lump-sum amount, which was awarded by the learned Tribunal, should be enhanced proportionately. Paras Nos. 16 and 17 of the judgment reads as under : "16. Then, how does one calculate pecuniary compensation for loss of future earnings and loss of dependency of the parents, grand parents etc. in the case of non-working student/ Under the Second Scheduled of the Act in case of a non-earning person, his income is notionally estimated at Rs.15,000/- per annum. The Second Schedule is applicable to claim petitions filed under Section 163A of the Act. The Second Schedule provides for the multiplier to be applied in cases where the age of victim was less than 15 years and between 15 years but not exceeding 20 years. Even when compensation is payable under Section 166 read with 168 of the Act, deviation from the structured formula as provided in the second schedule is not ordinarily permissible, except in exceptional cases. 17. Reverting back to the factual position of the present case, the date of accident is 18.11.1997. Even when compensation is payable under Section 166 read with 168 of the Act, deviation from the structured formula as provided in the second schedule is not ordinarily permissible, except in exceptional cases. 17. Reverting back to the factual position of the present case, the date of accident is 18.11.1997. Prior to this, the Second Schedule of the Act was already introduced w.e.f. 14.11.1994. Thus, the notional income mentioned in the Second Schedule and the multiplier specified therein can form the basis for the pecuniary compensation for the loss of dependency in the present cases. No fact and reason was highlighted during the arguments why the Second Schedule should not apply in he present case. The Second Schedule also provides for deduction of 1/3rd consideration towards expenses; which the victim would have incurred on himself if he had lived. As compensation for loss of dependency is to be calculated on the basis of notional income because the deceased was a child. It by necessary implication takes into account future prospects, inflation, price rise etc." 5. Looking at the above, we safely infer that in case of non-earning person, his income should be estimated notionally Rs.15,000/- p.a. and taking aid of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an appropriate multiplier should be applied. Hence, in the present case, if we calculate the compensation on this basis, we can infer that the notional income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.15,000/- per month. It is not in dispute that age of father and mother, who are dependents of deceased is of 68 years. Kanaram has stated his age in the statement, which were recorded on 5.2.1998 by the Tribunal, and the date of accident is 7.3.1995, thus, at the date of death of deceased, he was of 65 years and hence the appropriate multiplier will be 5. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs.15,000 x 5 = Rs.75,000/-. 6. Thus, there should not be any grievance to the claimants and the compensation, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal is just, proper and adequate, rather on higher side. 7. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs.15,000 x 5 = Rs.75,000/-. 6. Thus, there should not be any grievance to the claimants and the compensation, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal is just, proper and adequate, rather on higher side. 7. It has also been held by the Apex Court that there can be no golden scales applicable to all cases for measuring value of human life and the assessment of compensation would depend upon particular facts and circumstances and pecuniary or special features and held 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 is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be "just and reasonable". It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. 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 t 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 reasonable-ness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just." 8. The learned Tribunal had already awarded Rs.10,000/- for other statutory heads. 9. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonable-ness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just." 8. The learned Tribunal had already awarded Rs.10,000/- for other statutory heads. 9. Thus, looking at above, the compensation, which was awarded by the learned Tribunal is more than adequate. Hence, there is no force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.