Delhi High Court
Narain Dutt & Anr vs Aashu Kumar & Ors on 25 July, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25th July, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 340/2007
NARAIN DUTT & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Meghna Gaur Proxy
counsel for Mr. Mohit Gupta,
Adv.
versus
AASHU KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Adv.
with Saurabh Kumar Tuteja,
Adv for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `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.
2. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the driver,
owner or the Insurer Respondent Insurance Company, the same
has thus attained finality.
3. 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 `7,000/- to ` 8,000/- per
month.
4. 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, `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 `1,45,920/-
5. It is urged that the compensation awarded is inadequate and
very meager.
6. It is contended that even in a Claim Petition under Section 163-
A 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 `5,00,000/-.
7. 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.
8. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors.
(1994) 2 SCC 176, 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.
9. The deceased's income though claimed to be about `8,000/- per
month was accepted only as `3648/- per month. As per
structured formula, the loss of dependency would come to
`4,80,000/- (40,000/- x 2/3 x 18), whereas the loss of
dependency on applying the principle applicable in a Petition
under Section 166 of the Act and giving benefit of 30% towards
inflation, the compensation would come to `1,89,696/- (3648/-
x 12 + 30% x 2/3 x 5).
10. Thus, even on addition of compensation towards non-pecuniary
heads, the same would be much less than the compensation
payable under the structured formula.
11. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation. As stated
above, the compensation has to be just and reasonable. In a
Petition under Section 166, a victim or legal representative of a
deceased cannot be granted compensation less than the one
payable under Section 163-A 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 under Section 163-
A (without proof of negligence) will not be a just compensation.
12. In the circumstances, I would award a compensation of
`4,84,500/-, that is, `4,80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 2 ÷ 3 x 18)
towards loss of dependency; `2,000/- towards funeral expenses
and `2,500/- towards loss to estate which is payable to the
Appellants in a Petition under Section 163-A of the Act.
13. The compensation is thus enhanced from `1,76,000/- to
`4,84,500/-
14. The enhanced compensation of ` 3,08,500/- shall carry interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its
deposit in the Court.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
18. Pending Application stands disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JULY 25, 2012
vk
