Rajasthan High Court

Amit Kumar S/O Dharamveer vs Mahmood S/O Abdul on 5 July, 2022

Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5241/2019

Amit Kumar S/o Dharamveer, Aged About 16 Years, R/o Village
Alawda, Tehsil Ramgarh, Distt. Alwar (Raj) Minor Through Its
Natural Guardian Father Dharamveer S/o Ramswaroop Aged 37
Years, R/o Village Alawda, Tehsil Ramgarh Distt. Alwar (Raj)
                                                         ---Claimant-Appellant
                                   Versus
1.       Mahmood S/o Abdul, R/o Village, Mevali, Tehsil Nooh
         Distt. Mewat Hariyana Driver Dumphar (Truck) Reg No.
         Hr-74-3132)
2.       Mujibaar Rahman S/o Mohammad Sarif, R/o Revasan
         Tehsil Nooh, Distt. Mewat Hariyana Driver Dumphar
         (Truck) Reg No. HR-74-3132)
3.       Manager, Tata A.i.g. General Insurance Company Limited,
         Lotus Tower, Friends Colony, New Delhi, Insurer Veh.
         Dumphar    (Truck)      Reg       No.    HR-74-3132)        Policy   No.
         010092529400, Validity Dated 17.02.2014 To 16.02.2015
                                           ---Non-Claimants-Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Judgment

05/07/2022

Instant appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant for

enhancement of compensation, assailing the judgment dated

28.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar

(Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in MAC case

No.573/2014 (C.I.S No.3087/2015) by which compensation of Rs.

4,00,261/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% has been awarded in favour

of the claimant-appellant.

(2 of 5) [CMA-5241/2019]

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that the

appellant-claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Accidents Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') to claim

compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident

occurred on 30.06.2014 which was allowed and the Tribunal has

awarded compensation as indicated above.

However, being dissatisfied with the quantum of

compensation, the claimant has preferred this appeal. Counsel for

the claimant-appellant submits that the claimant-appellant has

sustained 54% permanent disability and a very meager amount of

Rs.4,00,261/- has been awarded.

He also placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court delivered in the case of Master Malikarjun Vs.

Divisional Manager, The Insurance Company Limited &

Anr., reported in 2013 MACD (SC) 300 and submits that the

impugned award needs suitable enhancement by this Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance

Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim

petition of the claimant-appellant has correctly taken into

consideration of the factors while calculating the award in this

case on the anvil of evidence produced before it, thus the

judgment dated 28.08.2019 does not call for any interference by

this Court.

Counsel further submits that looking to the 54% permanent

disability of the claimant-appellant and after considering all the

heads regarding loss of income and future prospects, an adequate

amount of compensation has already been awarded by the

Tribunal in favour of the claimant-appellant.

(3 of 5) [CMA-5241/2019]

Counsel also submits that even as per the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Master Malikarjun

(supra), the total amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- was awarded under all

the heads, so the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour

of the claimant-appellant in the present case is just and proper.

Heard and considered the arguments of both sides.

From bare perusal of the impugned judgment dated

28.08.2019, it is clear that the Tribunal has considered the facts

that the claimant-appellant has sustained 54% permanent

disability and after considering the loss of income and the

permanent disability suffered by the claimant-appellant, an

amount of Rs. 4,00,261/- has been awarded as compensation to

the claimant-appellant.

It is a settled proposition of law that unless and until, the

amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal appears to be

just and proper, the same is not required to be enhanced by the

Court of appeal.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC

5157 has dealt with the issue of just compensation in para no. 57

which reads thus:-

"57. 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 nonviolation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the

(4 of 5) [CMA-5241/2019]

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 (supra) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari (supra). 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.."

The Act of 1988 is in the nature of social welfare legislation

and its provisions make it clear that the compensation should be

justly determined.

In the case of Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Ors. vs

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.

Reported in 1999(10 SCC 90, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held

the following quantum of compensation:-

"The word 'just", as its nomenclature, denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness having large peripheral field. The largeness is, of course, not arbitrary; it is restricted by the conscience which is fair, reasonable and equitable, if it exceeds; it is termed as unfair, unreasonable, unequitable, not just"

There is no illegality and perversity in the findings recorded

by the Tribunal.

Even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

delivered in the case of Master Malikarjun (supra) sufficient

(5 of 5) [CMA-5241/2019]

amount of compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal to the

claimant-appellant.

The quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal for

the injuries and permanent disability suffered by the claimant-

appellant appears to be just and reasonable and the same may

not be treated as inadequate.

It is a settled proposition of law that the claimant-appellant