Narain Dutt and Another vs Aashu Kumar and Others

G. P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 1,76,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Parmod Kumar, a bachelor aged 26 years in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 15.03.2006. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the driver, owner or the Insurer Respondent Insurance Company, the same has thus attained finality.

During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased was running a business in the name and style of Diesel Gas Service. He used to earn Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month.

In the absence of any cogent evidence with regard to the deceased''s income, the Claims Tribunal took the deceased''s income as per his qualification (Matriculation), that is, Rs. 3648/- per month; deducted one-third towards the personal and living expense and applied the multiplier of ''5'' as per the age of the Claimants to compute the loss of dependency as Rs. 1,45,920/-

It is urged that the compensation awarded is inadequate and very meager.

It is contended that even in a Claim Petition u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), if the compensation is awarded on the basis of structured formula, the same would come to about Rs. 5,00,000/-.

Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining "the amount of compensation which appears to be just." However, the objective factors, which may constitute the basis of compensation appearing as just, have not been indicated in the Act. Thus, the expression "which appears to just" vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to determination of compensation. Similarly, although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the person (s) liable to pay compensation. The determination of compensation must be based on certain data, establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependents of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded to them. In nutshell, the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimant(s) has to be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards.

In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, , M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) had observed that the determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society "would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing". The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the "law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales". At the same time, a misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. The object of providing compensation is to place the claimant(s), to the extent possible, in almost the same financial position, as they were in before the accident and not to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen them.

The deceased''s income though claimed to be about Rs. 8,000/- per month was accepted only as Rs. 3648/- per month. As per structured formula, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 4,80,000/- (40,000/- x 2/3 x 18), whereas the loss of dependency on applying the principle applicable in a Petition u/s 166 of the Act and giving benefit of 30% towards inflation, the compensation would come to Rs. 1,89,696/- (3648/- x 12 + 30% x 2/3 x 5).

Thus, even on addition of compensation towards non-pecuniary heads, the same would be much less than the compensation payable under the structured formula.

The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation. As stated above, the compensation has to be just and reasonable. In a Petition u/s 166, a victim or legal representative of a deceased cannot be granted compensation less than the one payable u/s 163A of the Act; where they are not required to prove any negligence on the part of the wrong doer. Any compensation less than what is payable u/s 163A (without proof of negligence) will not be a just compensation.

In the circumstances, I would award a compensation of Rs. 4,84,500/-, that is, Rs. 4,80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 2 � 3 x 18) towards loss of dependency; Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- towards loss to estate which is payable to the Appellants in a Petition u/s 163A of the Act.

The compensation is thus enhanced from Rs. 1,76,000/- to Rs. 4,84,500/-

The enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,08,500/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its deposit in the Court.

Since the Appellant No.1 Narain Dutt, father of the deceased has expired during the pendency of the Appeal, the entire enhanced compensation shall be payable to Appellant No.2.

50% of the enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of one year and two years in equal proportion. Rest shall be released to the Appellant No.2 on deposit.

The Appeal is allowed in above terms. Pending Application stands disposed of.