Gaya Prasad Agrawal and Another vs T.A. Reddy and Others

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the III Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpur, on 19-4-1994 in Claim Case No. 50/1988.

The brief facts are that on 28-2-1988, the truck bearing Regn. No. M.T.G. 4022 dashed the son of the claimants namely Banti, aged about 21 years, who received many injuries and ultimately died in the hospital on the same day. The claimants filed claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lakhs. The said claim was contested by the respondents.

After framing issues and recording evidence of parties the Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver and the claimants were entitled to receive compensation on account of death of their son. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 21,000/- as the amount of compensation to the claimants on the ground of future expected earning of the deceased child. It determined that in the normal circumstances the future expected earning of the deceased would be Rs. 500/- per month and deducting 50% of the same, it further determined the dependency as Rs. 250/-per month and Rs. 3000/- per year. Looking to the age of the appellants and the probable expected longevity of their life, a multiplier of 7 was used and the total compensation of Rs. 21,000/- was finally determined.

Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is too meager, which should be enhanced suitably. He further argued that the law has undergone a drastic change and looking to the overall scenario, the amount of Rs. 21,000/- cannot be said to be the just and proper compensation in this case.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case.

Admittedly, the accident took place on 28-2-1988 and the claim petition was filed u/s 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is also admitted that the boy was aged about 21 years on the date of incident. Now the question arises as to what would be the compensation in such case ?

It is almost a settled view that the Tribunals are under obligation to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is "just and reasonable". The Apex Court held in the matter of State of Haryana and Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others, , that the Tribunal while awarding compensation has to determine the amount which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be "just and reasonable". Though compensation for loss of limbs of life cannot be weighed in golden scales but at the same time compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim.

The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.

While interpreting the word "just", the Apex Court held in the matter of Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and Another, , that the word "just" as its nomenclature, denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness having a 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. The Apex Court said that thus, this field of wider discretion of the Tribunal has to be within the said limitations and the limitations under any provision of this Act or any other provision having the force of law.

As stated above, the deceased was a child aged about 2 � years and was admittedly a non-earning person. He had a prospect to earn having an uncertainty in future. Therefore, in such case, the income of the deceased child is not capable of assessment and the quantum of financial loss suffered by the claimants was not possible to be determined on estimation or by applying a mathematical method or mode. Therefore, in all possibility, a compensation which would have been just and reasonable was to be determined by the Claims Tribunal, keeping in mind the principles of equitability, fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.

We have seen that law has undergone a drastic change since the year 1988 as the Act of 1988 came into force on 1-7-1989 and further many guidelines have been provided in it regarding calculation of amount of damages like computation on the basis of structural formula provided under Second Schedule of the Act, 1988. Therefore, in all fairness and in overall scenario, we feel that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not just and proper as it is on the lower side and the same deserves to be suitably enhanced by this Court on the above principles.

In our considered view, in such circumstances, it would be just and proper if a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the claimants as the amount of compensation on account of death of their son in the said motor accident which took place on 28-2-1988.

Therefore, we hold and determine that the claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as the total amount of compensation and accordingly, we enhance the amount of compensation by Rs. 29,000/-. Though the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 29,000/- at the appropriate rate, but considering the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly that the incident took place in the year 1988 and the claim was awarded in the year 1994 and further a reasonable time has elapsed thereafter, we deem it appropriate to quantify the interest at Rs. 11,000/- only in lump-sum which the claimants shall be entitled to receive in this matter. The enhanced amount as well as the amount of interest, i.e., Rs. 40,000/- shall be deposited by the concerned respondent(s) within a period of two months from today, failing which, the appellants/claimants shall be entitled to receive interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 29,000/- for the period commencing after the end of two months till its realization.

The appeal is allowed in part and the award is modified to the extent indicated above.

No order as to the cost.