Rajasthan High Court
Chitar And Ors vs Devisahai And Anr on 5 July, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6558/2017
1. Chitar son of Sh. Bhorilal (deceased)
2. Gulab wife of Lt. Sh. Gopal, aged 48 years.
3. Komal son of Lt. Sh. Gopal, aged 28 years.
4. Meenu daughter of Lt. Sh. Gopal Lal, aged 26 years.
5. Manoj Kumar son of Lt. Sh. Gopal Lal, aged 24 years.
All residents of Gangadhar Rao ki Gali, Pani Ki Tanki ke Niche,
Getor Road, Brahmpuri, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Devisahai son of Sh. Mamchand Verma, resident of Near
Kama House, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Driver and owner of truck
No.RRL-8151)
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd, through its Divisional
Manager, Opposite Sharma Building, MI Road, Jaipur (Insurance
Company of Truck No.RRL-8151)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. KN Tiwari
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
05/07/2022
Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants-
appellants against the impugned judgment and award dated
13.09.2017 passed by the Court of Special Judge, (Printing and
Stationery Embezzlement Cases)-cum-Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') in MAC Case No.364/2017(575/2016) whereby the claim
petition filed by the claimants-appellants has been allowed and a
sum of Rs.7,34,200/- has been awarded as compensation in
favour of the claimants-appellants.
(2 of 3) [CMA-6558/2017]
Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants had
filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 for getting compensation after sudden demise of deceased
Gopal. He further submits that the claimants have filed a claim
petition seeking adequate compensation on account of loss
suffered by the family, but the Tribunal has awarded a very
meager amount of Rs.7,34,200/-. Hence, the award passed by the
Tribunal needs suitable enhancement.
Heard counsel for the appellants on merits.
In the present case, the deceased Gopal met with accident
on 02.06.2015 and due to injuries sustained by him in the
accident, he expired on 17.08.1998.
It is well settled principle of law that compensation cannot be
claimed as a matter of right or as a matter of bonanza to get the
benefits. It is statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Court as well,
to award "just compensation". It is obviously true that the
termination of just compensation cannot be equitted to a
"bonanza". At the same time, the concept of just compensation
obviously suggest application of fair and equitable principles and
reasonable approach on the part of the Tribunal and Court. This
reasonable laws on the part of the Tribunal and the Court must be
on peripheral field.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors: (2017) 16 SCC 680
has dealt with the issue of "just compensation" in para No.55
which reads as under:-
"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
(3 of 3) [CMA-6558/2017]
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 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 and
it has been approved in Reshma Kumari. 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."
Quantum of compensation as assessed and awarded by the
Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable and the same cannot
be treated as inadequate.
Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings
recorded by the Tribunal.
In the opinion of this court, the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal appears to be just and proper.
Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants is found
to be devoid of any merit and accordingly stands dismissed.
All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI /33
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
