M.P.S.R.T.C. and Another vs Narendra and Others

This is an appeal filed by the M.P.S.R.T.C. (non-applicant) u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 29.1.2003, passed by learned Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barwaha, District West Nimar in Claim Case No. 104 of 2001. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 26,59,000 together with 12% interest on the said sum for the injuries sustained by him (respondent). According to non-applicant, the claim should have been dismissed and in any event the compensation awarded is on higher side and hence, it is liable to be reduced.

So, two questions arise in this appeal filed by the M.P.S.R.T.C. i.e., owner of offending vehicle, First, whether Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim petition? And second, whether Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation amounting to Rs. 26,59,000 to the claimant for the injuries suffered by the claimant?

Heard Mr. S.V. Dandwate, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. N.K. Dave, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. G. Verma, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and while answering the first question against the appellant, answer the second one in favour of the appellant.

So far as the first question is concerned, we having gone through the evidence adduced by the parties and having examined the impugned finding recorded by the Tribunal, have formed an opinion that Tribunal did not commit any error in answering the said question in appellant''s favour when it proceeded to hold that claimant suffered injuries in the accident that occurred with the offending Bus.

In short, the case of the claimant was that on 17.4.2001, he was returning from Sanawad on his motorbike, when the offending Bus (MP-10-O-9594) belonging to State Road Transport Corporation, passed through in speed which resulted in falling from the top of bus what is called "Tarafa i.e., Iron Sheet" on the claimant due to which he fell down. It is in this incident, according to claimant, he lost his both eyes and became blind totally. He gave his evidence. However, driver of the bus who was the best witness to the incident was not examined. He remained ex pane. The evidence of conductor does not inspire confidence. We believe the version of claimant who narrated the incident mentioned supra in his deposition. In our view, why should the claimant, a victim of the incident, speak lie. He survived and hence could narrate the incident and its manner. The manner in which the accident occurred is not something unnatural. It is very much possible and may also happen. A particular luggage kept on the roof of bus can always fall when the bus is moving. It usually occurs. It is really unfortunate that it coincided with time when the bus was passing through the claimant.

Learned Counsel for the appellant was critical about the manner in which accident occurred and the version of claimant. We do not agree. Once we believe the version of claimant which as stated supra is equally possible then the submission is not acceptable. As observed supra, it usually occurs when the bus i.e., any vehicle is moving. It happened in this case also, making the claimant a victim of the unfortunate incident.

We, therefore, uphold the finding of Tribunal on this question and answer the question No. 1 in favour of respondent and against the appellant.

Coming to the second question, true it is that claimant aged around 38 years and a government contractor by profession has lost his eye sight of both eyes and has become totally blind. Yet we feel that an award for Rs. 26,59,000 appears to be on higher side. We cannot ignore the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case reported in The Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, , made following subtle observations in para 15:

It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which to it appears to be ''just''. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limb or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. Bodily injury is nothing but deprivation which entitles the claimant to damages. The quantum of damages fixed should be in accordance to the injury. An injury may bring about many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential losses. A person becomes entitled to damages for the mental and physical loss, his or her life may have been shortened or that he or she cannot enjoy life which has been curtailed because of physical handicap. The normal expectation of life is impaired. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not...clearly indicate the compensation must be ''just'' and it cannot be a bonanza not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be ''just'' compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all the cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. The measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of ''just'' compensation which is the privotal consideration. Though by use of the expression ''which appears to it to be just'' a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression ''just'' denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. See Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and Another, .

It has come in evidence that claimant''s monthly earning was around to Rs. 15,000 from his profession/business i.e., Contractorship. We would prefer to take loss of yearly income at Rs. 1,80,000. This is proved by Income Tax Returns. We, prefer to take Rs. 1,00,000 as a loss because if he cannot do the business of his own, atleast some one can be employed by him for doing the business. Applying the multiplier of 15 and deducting 1/3rd, we get around Rs. 10,50,000. We feel that a sum of Rs. 10,50,000 appears just, reasonable and proper in place of Rs. 26,59,000. In addition, a sum of Rs. 84,000 already awarded by the Tribunal for medical expenses and Rs. 30,000 towards pain and sufferings and Rs. 25,000 for special diet makes the total of Rs. 10,50,000 + Rs. 84,000 + Rs. 30,00 + Rs. 25,000 - Rs. 11,89,000. In our opinion, it is this sum i.e., Rs. 11,89,000 which is most reasonable, legal and proper that is payable to the claimant.

The compensation awarded to the claimant is adjust, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced and the relevant factors mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the Courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation.

Learned Counsel for the appellant cited some authorities for claiming enhancement. We have gone through these authorities. In our opinion and as observed supra, every case depends upon facts of each case and one can rely upon the cases for awarding compensation.

In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The awarded sum will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application till realisation. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge.

Counsel fees Rs. 1,500, if certified.