U.P.State Road Transport Corpn. vs Ram Sudharey

Dr. Satish Chandra, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Tewari, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh for the respondent.

This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 7th March, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barabanki in Claim Petition No. 327 of 2002.

The brief facts of the case are that on 18th March, 2002, the claimant Sri Ram Sudharey was going from village Dubaki to his village Masauli by cycle. When he was reaching near Masauli policestation, the driver of U.P.S.R.T.C. No. UP 42, T0473 was driving the bus rashly and negligently and hit the claimant respondent. He fell down and sustained injuries. The Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki has given the certificate certifying 40% permanent disability. The claimant filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barabanki, who has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,03,612 by the impugned order. Not being satisfied, the appellant is before this Court.

With this background, learned Counsel for the appellant stated that claimant Sri Ram Sudharey S/o Sri Bhai Lal was riding the cycle carelessly and he came before the bus without any indication, so he himself is solely responsible for the said accident. The claimant is a labourer in the village and there is no permanent employment, so the compensation was awarded on higher side. The bus driver was an experienced driver and was driving the vehicle with slow speed as per the traffic rules and the cycle was coming from the wrong side. Lastly, he made a request that the impugned order of the Tribunal may be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has justified the order of the Tribunal.

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the claimantrespondent met with an accident on 18th March, 2002 with U.P.S.R.T.C. Bus No. UP 42, T0473. The bus hit him from the backside and he was jumped about 2 to 3 meter. The person can jump on an accident when the bus was in motion, otherwise he might have fallen down near the bus. The driver of the bus Sri Dwarika Prasad Misra has already accepted the said accident. However, he put the responsibility on the claimant respondent for riding the cycle on the wrong side but the fact remains that the F.I.R. was lodged against the said driver Sri Dwarika Prasad Misra where the bus driver was held responsible for the injuries of the claimantrespondent. As per the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki, the claimantrespondent has got 40% permanent disability. In these circumstances, we uphold that the appellant''s bus driver is responsible for the said accident.

Regarding quantum, it appears that the Tribunal has taken notional income of Rs. 15,000 for the purpose of compensation. 40% of the same comes to Rs. 6,000 per annum. By looking to the age, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier ''16''. Thus, the claim for permanent disability of 40% comes to Rs. 96,000. In addition, Rs. 5,000 was awarded for pains and suffering. Due to grievous injuries, Rs. 2,621 was awarded for the medical expenses. Thus, the total sum of Rs. 1,03,621 was awarded to the claimant respondent which appears to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal.

Needless to mention that India is one of the countries with the highest number of road accidents. Motor Accidents are everyday affairs. A large number of claims for compensation for injury caused by road accidents are pending in various Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In a fatal accident, the dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death. The most commonly practiced method of assessing the loss suffered to calculate the loss for a year and then to capitalize the amount by a suitable multiplier. To that is added the loss suffered on account of loss of expectation of life and the like. The Tribunals and High Courts have adopted divergent methods to determine the suitable multiplier. Even this Court has not been uniform; may be because the principle on which this method came to be evolved has been forgotten. It has, therefore, become necessary to examine the law and to state the correct principles to be adopted.

The damages for vehicular accidents are in the nature of compensation in money for loss of any kind caused to any person. In case of personal injury the position is different from loss of property. In the later case, there is possibility of repair or restoration. But in the case of personal injury, the possibility of repairer restoration is practically nonexistent In Parry v. Cleaver, 1969 (1) All.E.R. 555, Lord Morris stated as follows:

"To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult, but........no other process can be devised than that of making monetary assessment."

Statutory provisions clearly indicate the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and nonarbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, 1998 (2) JCLR 1007 (SC): A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 3191.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt, 1996(2) JCLR 52 (SC): A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 755, laying principles posited :

"Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas nonpecuniary damages are those which are capable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as nonpecuniary damages are concerned they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."

In the light of above discussions, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal and the F.A.F.O. is devoid of merits.

In the result, the F.A.F.O. is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.