Umesh Chandra Tiwari vs Arun Kumar and Another

This appeal has been filed by the Appellant u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") against the judgment/award dated 21.04.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 123/98 (Umesh Chandra Tiwari v. Arun Kumar and Anr.). In the present appeal, a claim is made for enhancement of the compensation to Rs. 60,000/- whereas the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 42,000/-.

Brief facts of the case are that on 24.06.1997 at about 5.15 p.m., the Appellant Umesh Chandra Tiwari was travelling to Lucknow on Scooter No. U.P.-32/P-0599 as a pillion rider. The Scooter was driven by Sri Arvind Singh alias Arvind Singh Pahawa. When the scooter reached near Anora Petrol Pump, Barabanki Road, it collided with Maruti Car No. U.V.J. 4443 which was coming from the opposite direction and the Appellant suffered from multiple injuries as such he was admitted in King Gorge Medical College, Lucknow, where he remained under treatment for more than a month. He has made a claim for Rs. 60,000/- incurred towards treatment, but as he was able to produce the vouchers for only for Rs. 23,000/-, so the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 23,000/- only for medical expenses, Rs. 15,000/- for compensation, and for pain and suffering a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. Thus, a sum of Rs. 42,000/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal. Being not satisfied, the Appellant has filed the present appeal.

With this backgrounds, we have heard at length Sri Subodh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party i.e. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lucknow.

In the present appeal, there is no dispute about the facts pertaining to the accident in question. The only dispute is regarding the enhancement of the compensation.

From the record, it appears that the Appellant has given vouchers only for Rs. 23,000/- for the medical treatment. Needless to mention that as per the second schedule u/s 173-A of the Act the compensation on the basis of actual expenditure supported by bills/vouchers is to be awarded.

In the instant case, the Appellant has produced the vouchers only for Rs. 23,000/- and the same were accepted. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- was given as compensation to the Appellant as he was earning a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month. In addition, for the pain and suffering a sum of Rs. 4,000/- was also given to the Appellant.

In these circumstances, the request of the Appellant to enhance the compensation for Rs. 60,000/- cannot be acceded specially when "no disability" certificate was submitted at any stage. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal appears reasonable and just in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Needless to mention that for determination of the compensation, there can be no exact uniform rule for measuring the damage, amount recoverable depends on broad facts and circumstances of each case. It should not be a source of profit of the person in whose favour it is awarded. Upjohn L.J. In Charter House Credit v. Jolly (1963) 2 CB 683) remarked, ''the assessment of damages has never been an exact science; it is essentially practical''.

Statutory provisions 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 cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. 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 pivotal 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,

However, at the same time, the inspiration may be drawn from the observation made by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, where culled out the basic principles governing the assessment of compensation emerging from the legal authorities cited above the reiterated that the multiplier method is the sound method of assessing compensation. The Hon''ble Court as observed that the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants, whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what a capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed - up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.

In the magnitude of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned Tribunal. The same is sustained along with the reasons mentioned above.

The appeal is hereby dismissed.