Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1949 (RAJ)

Amit Kumar v. Mahmood

2022-07-05

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Instant appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation, assailing the judgment dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal') in MAC case No. 573/2014 (C.I.S No. 3087/2015) by which compensation of Rs. 4,00,261/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% has been awarded in favour of the claimant-appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that the appellant-claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Accidents Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 30.06.2014 which was allowed and the Tribunal has awarded compensation as indicated above. 3. However, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred this appeal. Counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that the claimant-appellant has sustained 54% permanent disability and a very meager amount of Rs. 4,00,261/- has been awarded. 4. He also placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Master Malikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The Insurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in 2013 MACD (SC) 300 and submits that the impugned award needs suitable enhancement by this Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimant-appellant has correctly taken into consideration of the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of evidence produced before it, thus the judgment dated 28.08.2019 does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. Counsel further submits that looking to the 54% permanent disability of the claimant-appellant and after considering all the heads regarding loss of income and future prospects, an adequate amount of compensation has already been awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant-appellant. 7. Counsel also submits that even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Master Malikarjun (supra), the total amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- was awarded under all the heads, so the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant-appellant in the present case is just and proper. 8. Heard and considered the arguments of both sides. 9. 3,75,000/- was awarded under all the heads, so the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant-appellant in the present case is just and proper. 8. Heard and considered the arguments of both sides. 9. From bare perusal of the impugned judgment dated 28.08.2019, it is clear that the Tribunal has considered the facts that the claimant-appellant has sustained 54% permanent disability and after considering the loss of income and the permanent disability suffered by the claimant-appellant, an amount of Rs. 4,00,261/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant-appellant. 10. It is a settled proposition of law that unless and until, the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper, the same is not required to be enhanced by the Court of appeal. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 has dealt with the issue of just compensation in para no. 57 which reads thus:- "57. 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 (supra) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari (supra). The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma (supra) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari (supra). 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...." 12. The Act of 1988 is in the nature of social welfare legislation and its provisions make it clear that the compensation should be justly determined. 13. In the case of Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Ors. vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Reported in 1999 (1) SCC 90 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held the following quantum of compensation:- "The word 'just", as its nomenclature, denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness having large peripheral field. The largeness is, of course, not arbitrary; it is restricted by the conscience which is fair, reasonable and equitable, if it exceeds; it is termed as unfair, unreasonable, unequitable, not just" 14. There is no illegality and perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 15. Even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Master Malikarjun (supra) sufficient amount of compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant-appellant. 16. The quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal for the injuries and permanent disability suffered by the claimant-appellant appears to be just and reasonable and the same may not be treated as inadequate. 17. It is a settled proposition of law that the claimant-appellant may not claim compensation as a windfall and if the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper, the same needs no interference by the Court of appeal. 18. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present appeal. 19. In view of the above, the appeal is hereby dismissed. 20. All pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) dismissed.