Managing Director, J&K Srtc And Another vs Abdul Rashid Rather And Others

Impugned in this Appeal is Award dated 18th October 2016, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (for short “Tribunalâ€) on a

claim petition bearing File no.95/2009, titled Abdul Rashid Rather and another v. Managing Director, SRTC and others, on the grounds made mention

of therein.

A claim petition, as is discernible from perusal of record on the file, was filed by claimants â€" respondents 1&2 herein, stating therein that on 19th

January 2009 one Tariq Rather son of Abdul Rashid Rather resident of Kotranka, Rajouri (hereinafter referred to as “deceasedâ€) along with his

friend, was travelling on a motor bicycle and while reaching Bagla Moad, Thanda Pani, Sundar Bani, Rajouri, was hit by a vehicle (Crane) bearing

Registration no.JK02Y-0176, which was rashly and negligently driven by its driver, resulting in on the spot death of deceased. In this regard an FIR

no.03/2009 in concerned police station was lodged. A claim petition thereafter came to be filed by respondents 1&2 before the Tribunal, claiming

therein that at the time of accident, age of deceased was 20 years; he was earning Rs.9000/- per month; and on the edifice of case set up, they sought

compensation of Rs.30.20 Lacs.

Appellants herein filed their written statement in opposition to claim petition of respondents 1&2. Given the pleadings of parties, the Tribunal framed

four Issues and after discussing them in detail passed impugned Award.

I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter

Learned counsel for appellants submits that there was no evidence on record to prove that accident in question took place due to motor vehicle

owned by appellant-corporation. It is pertinent to mention here that while deciding Issue no.1, the Tribunal, after considering statement of witnesses

and documents placed on record, found death of deceased caused due to vehicular accident.

The Tribunal is said to have wrongly assessed monthly income of deceased as Rs.4500/- without any evidence and that compensation has also been

wrongly computed by the Tribunal. These submissions of learned counsel for appellants are misconceived, baseless and specious. The Tribunal has

been very conservative in taking Rs.45000/- as annual income of deceased.

In the above milieu, it is germane to add here that there cannot be actual compensation for anguish of heart or for mental tribulations. The

quintessentiality lies in pragmatic computation of loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, stipulates grant of “just compensationâ€. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just

compensation†which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance. [Vide: K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co.

Ltd. (2012) 12 SCC 274].

In the backdrop of averments made in Appeal and submissions made by learned counsel for appellant, it may be pertinent to mention here that it has

been emphasised over and over again that “just compensation†should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position

as she or he was in, before occurrence of accident. Whilst no amount of money or other material compensation can erase trauma, pain and suffering

that a victim undergoes after a serious accident, (or replace loss of a loved one), monetary compensation is the manner known to law, by which

society assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the victims who have to face their lives.

In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company, (2011) 13 SCC 236, the Supreme Court reckoned monthly income

of a coolie (manual labourer), who met with a road accident in the year 2004, at the age of 35 years, notionally as Rs.4,500/-. The Supreme Court held

that claimant, who was working as a coolie, cannot be expected to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In absence of any

other evidence contrary to claim made by claimant, in the facts of the said case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of claimant. The

Supreme Court has made it clear that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not to accept claim of claimant, in the absence of

supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground

realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may

include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time.

Again, the Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 735, while taking note of earlier

decision in Ramachandrappa’s case (supra), reckoned monthly income of a vegetable vendor, who met with a road accident in the year 2008, at

the age of 24 years, notionally as Rs.6,500/-. In the said decision, the Supreme Court held that a labourer in an unorganized sector doing his own

business could not be expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. Therefore, there was no reason for Tribunal and the High Court to

ask for evidence to prove his monthly income. Going by the state of economy, prevailing at that time and rising prices in agricultural products, the

Supreme Court accepted his case that a vegetable vendor was reasonably capable of earning 6,500/- per month.

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, has held that Section 168 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with concept of ‘just compensation’ and same has to be determined on 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, i.e., just compensation.

Submissions made by learned counsel for appellant corporation, when glimpsed in meticulous examination of impugned Award, have been broadly

answered by the Tribunal while adjudicating upon and deciding the Issues.

The Tribunal has not made computations and calculations on presumptions, but has applied rightly and accurately the multiplier and multiplicand

and has rightly calculated loss of income of deceased and thereafter has in a proper way and manner made deductions wherever those were found

appropriate and required to be effected. Compensation on other heads/accounts has also been rightly and appropriately given by the Tribunal. Having

said that, impugned Award need not be interfered with and as a corollary thereof, appeal is liable to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal on hand is dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.

Record of the Tribunal, if summoned/received, be sent down along with copy of this judgement.