Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lokendra Singh vs Krishanchand Shukla on 28 June, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1 MA No. 1043/2010
Lokendra Singh vs. Krishnachand Shukla & others
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(Single Bench)
MISC. APPEAL NO. 1043 OF 2010
Lokendra Singh ..... APPELLANT
Versus
Krishnachand Shukla & Others ..... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM
Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri R.P.Gupta, learned counsel for the Appellant.
Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent
No.3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for Reporting : No
Reserved on : 26.06.2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Passed on 28th June, 2021)
Assailing the award dated 4.5.2010 passed by First
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Bhind in
Claim Case No. 46/2009, on the point of inadequacy of the
compensation, this appeal has been preferred by the
appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988.
2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail as to
the manner the accident has occurred, to burden the judgment on
the said issues. It is only the liability on the part of the insurance
Lokendra Singh vs. Krishnachand Shukla & others
company to pay the compensation and inadequacy of the
compensation is being considered and decided in succeeding
paragraphs.
3. On going through the record, it is found that the alleged
accident took place on 13.09.2008. It is alleged that the
occupation of the injured-claimant was work of selling milk and
agricultural operation, therefrom he was earning Rs.5000/- per
month and due to fracture in femur bone of left leg he remained
admitted in private Hospital in Gwalior. He was operated and steel
rod was inserted and for a period of six months during treatment
the appellant was not able to do any work.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
amount awarded, in the opinion of this Court, appears to be
inadequate.
5. 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
Lokendra Singh vs. Krishnachand Shukla & others
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 vs. DTC [(2009) 6 SCC 121] and it has been approved in
Reshma Kumari v. Madam Mohan [(2013) 9 SCC 65]. 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. In such an adjudication, the
duty of the tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an
endeavour has been made by this Court for standardization which
in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven
income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there
has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty,
stability and consistency. We approve the principle of
"standardization" so that a specific and certain multiplicand is
determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age.
6. On the basis of above discussion and considering the fact
that the parties have arrived at a consensus that a sum of Rs.
7,150/- is enhanced as lump sum amount in addition to the amount
already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal has already
granted compensation of Rs.57,850/-. Thus, the appellant-injured
is held entitled to receive enhanced amount of Rs.7,150/- in
addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the
Claims Tribunal, making the total compensation of Rs.65.000/-.
The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from
Lokendra Singh vs. Krishnachand Shukla & others
the date of filing of claim petition till the realisation. The said
amount be paid within a period of sixty days from the date of the
order passed by this Court.
7. The Misc. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. In the facts
of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
Judge.
(yog)
YOGESH VERMA
2021.06.29
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
14:47:59 +05'30'
