Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1948 (RAJ)

Hitesh Kumar v. Nahar Singh

2022-07-05

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant assailing the impugned judgment and award dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Court of Special Judge, (Printing and Stationery Embezzlement Cases)-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MAC Case No. 521/2017 (82/2016) whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant has been allowed and a sum of Rs. 3,48,200/- has been awarded as compensation in favor of the claimant-appellant. 2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') for getting the compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 09.09.2015, which was allowed by the Tribunal as indicated above. 3. However, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 4. Counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that in the aforesaid accident, the appellant has suffered 33.16 permanent disability, but without any basis, the Tribunal has treated the same as 20 per cent only. 5. He further submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant, very inadequate amount of compensation has been awarded. He further submits that under the loss of income a very petty amount has been awarded, hence, the award needs suitable enhancement. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-RSRTC submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimant-appellant has correctly taken into consideration all the factors while calculating the award in the present case on the anvil of evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment and award dated 26.02.2018 does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the amount so awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and same should not be enhanced by this Court. 8. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and perused the materials available on record. 9. In the present case, the appellant met with an accident on 09.09.2015 and he has sustained certain injuries including fracture, due to which he sustained 33.16 per cent permanent disability. 10. 8. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and perused the materials available on record. 9. In the present case, the appellant met with an accident on 09.09.2015 and he has sustained certain injuries including fracture, due to which he sustained 33.16 per cent permanent disability. 10. After considering the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar reported in 2011 (91) TAC 785 SC, the Tribunal has determined the disability of the injured as 20% for determining the loss of income. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation for the simple and grievous injuries, reimbursement of medical bills and under the head of physical and mental pain and suffering and thereby computed the compensation considering the 20% permanent disability of the appellant. And after going through all the relevant facts, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,48,200/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5 per cent from the date of filing the claim petition. 11. It is well settled principle of law that compensation cannot be claimed as a matter of right or as a matter of bonanza to get the benefits. It is statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Court as well, to award "just compensation". It is obviously true that the termination of just compensation cannot be equated to a "bonanza". At the same time, the concept of just compensation obviously suggest application of fair and equitable principles and reasonable approach on the part of the Tribunal and Court. This reasonable laws on the part of the Tribunal and the Court must be on peripheral field. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors (2017) 16 SCC 680 has dealt with the issue of "just compensation" in para No. 55 which reads as under:- "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. 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 and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari. 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. In such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an endeavor has been made by this Court for standardization which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the principle of "standardization" so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age." 13. Quantum of compensation as assessed and awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable and the same cannot be treated as inadequate. 14. Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 15. In the opinion of this court, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper. 16. Quantum of compensation as assessed and awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable and the same cannot be treated as inadequate. 14. Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 15. In the opinion of this court, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper. 16. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant is found to be devoid of any merit and accordingly stands dismissed. 17. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.