Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 401 (MP)

Gangoo Bai Kol v. Milloo @ Ashok Garg

2020-03-12

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant-injured assailing the award dated 26.3.2008 passed by 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni in Claim Case No. 71/2007, on the point of inadequacy of the compensation. 2. The incident in question occurred due to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle (Jeep bearing registration No. MP 20/H/5353) and the Insurance Company has been held liable to pay the compensation recording the findings in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal and none of those findings have been assailed at the instance of the Insurance Company or owner/driver by filing the cross-appeal or cross-objection, therefore, it is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail to burden the judgment on the said issue. It is only the inadequacy of the compensation which has been assailed in this appeal by the claimant. 3. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant-injured had filed claim petition before the Claims Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in the present appeal the appellant has, prayed for enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs. 10,000/- compensation to the appellant though she had suffered 10% permanent disability and learned Tribunal has also erred in not awarding any amount towards the medical attendance, special diet during the treatment, loss of earning, etc. Hence, the amount of compensation should be enhanced reasonably. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has opposed the submissions and has submitted that the awarded amount is just and reasonable, hence prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 7. In para 19 of the award, the Claims Tribunal after analyzing the evidence and facts and circumstances of the case has observed that the appellant has suffered 10% permanent disability. The aforesaid findings of the Claims Tribunal for the reasons mentioned in the award do not call for any interference by this Court. 8. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant. In my opinion, this amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on lower side. 9. The aforesaid findings of the Claims Tribunal for the reasons mentioned in the award do not call for any interference by this Court. 8. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant. In my opinion, this amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on lower side. 9. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of "just compensation" and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of "just compensation" has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, "just compensation". The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma v. DTC [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari v. Madam Mohan [ (2013) 9 SCC 65 ]. The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The Tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. 10. On the basis of above discussion and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice, an amount of Rs. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. 10. On the basis of above discussion and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice, an amount of Rs. 12,000/- is enhanced as lump sum amount in addition to the amount of award already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 11. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is held entitled to receive enhanced amount of Rs. 12,000/- in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, making the total compensation of Rs. 22,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the realisation. The said amount be paid within a period of sixty days from the date of the order passed by this Court. 12. In the facts of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.