Rajasthan High Court
Hitesh Kumar vs Nahar Singh 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. 2837/2018
Hitesh Kumar S/o Mohan Lal Sharma, R/o Katara, Police Station
And Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Nahar Singh S/o Shri Ram Swaroop, R/o Thoon, Tehsil
Nagar, District Bharatpur Driver
2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through
Manager, Commissioner Office, Parivahan Marg, Chomu
House Circle, Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur Owner Of
The Bus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shruti Dixit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
05/07/2022
Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant
assailing the impugned judgment and award dated 26.02.2018
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.521/2017(82/2016) whereby the claim petition filed by
the claimant-appellant has been allowed and a sum of
Rs.3,48,200/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the
claimant-appellant.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had filed
a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') for getting the
(2 of 4) [CMA-2837/2018]
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident
occurred on 09.09.2015, which was allowed by the Tribunal as
indicated above.
However, being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation, the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal for
enhancement of the compensation.
Counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that in the
aforesaid accident, the appellant has suffered 33.16 permanent
disability, but without any basis, the Tribunal has treated the same
as 20 per cent only.
He further submits that looking to the injuries sustained by
the claimant-appellant, very inadequate amount of compensation
has been awarded. He further submits that under the loss of
income a very petty amount has been awarded, hence, the award
needs suitable enhancement.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-RSRTC submits
that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimant-
appellant has correctly taken into consideration all the factors
while calculating the award in the present case on the anvil of
evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment and award dated
26.02.2018 does not call for any interference by this Court.
Learned counsel further submits that the amount so awarded
by the Tribunal is just and proper and same should not be
enhanced by this Court.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the
judgment and perused the materials available on record.
In the present case, the appellant met with an accident on
09.09.2015 and he has sustained certain injuries including
(3 of 4) [CMA-2837/2018]
fracture, due to which he sustained 33.16 per cent permanent
disability.
After considering the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar reported in 2011 91) TAC
785 SC, the Tribunal has determined the disability of the injured
as 20% for determining the loss of income. The Tribunal has
assessed the compensation for the simple and grievous injuries,
reimbursement of medical bills and under the head of physical and
mental pain and suffering and thereby computed the
compensation considering the 20% permanent disability of the
appellant. And after going through all the relevant facts, the
Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,48,200/- as compensation along with
interest @ 7.5 per cent from the date of filing the claim petition.
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
(4 of 4) [CMA-2837/2018]
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 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 appellant-claimant 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 /71
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
