MOH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH* BILA8P(IR DIvteion Bendi: Hon>ble Sluri L.C* Bliadoo & Hontble Sluri Buull Kiuuar Slnlui^iJ. MA.tCI Mo. 984 of2007 Kamksh Mishia Vwus Axaia Khan & Ofhera ORDBR Order fer considfk1nfttff>n I- 1 Sd/- Juage^'-— Z-% .08.2007 Hon'bte Sluri L.C. Bhadoo. J. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Post for Oider. ^ .08.2007 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^ HlQXt COOKT OP CHHATTI8QARH. MJLtCI No. 984 of2007 APPBLLANT CLAIMANT RB8POKDBWT8 Y Kamtessh Mishra S/o- Shaktmafh Mishra, Aged about 34 years, R/o- Vidage Chaknaar, P,S, Gaocidsd, Tehsil- Chhuiekhadan, Distt- Rajnaadgaon (C.G.) Vwu» Amm Khan, S/o Kalam Khan, Aged aboi2^22 years, Occupation- Driver^ R/o Radliilca Na^ir, Ward No-1 Doaigargarh, Diatt.- Raj|xiaxidgoaxi Akhay Jain, S/o Viaaalchaxid Jam, R/o DiirgaTaIdesRoad Rayiaxidgoaxi National Insuroxrce Co. Ltd*, Brsunch Office, Kaoati LineRajna^idgaon Anil Kixmar, S/o P&ltaiiraxn Sitiha^ R/o- Chaknaar, P.O.-Atriya, At-prcsent viBage Namiada, Tehsal- Chhtiieldhiadan, Distt.- RaJQandgoan Bajaj ABiaoce Generad Insuraiice Co< Ltd,, Shivinolian Bhawan, Yidhaasabha Road, P&iidrfctarai^ Raipur (C.G.) r.19881 Aonearanoe: Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, counsel for fhe appellant DIVIMOII BBHCH: HOirBUSSHRI L.C. BHADOO A HOITBLB 8HRI SimBL KUMAR 8IKHA. JJ. QRDBR <30.08.200^ PoUowmg Oxder of fhe Court was delrvercd by Snnll Kninar filahft^ J. \t (1) This app^d is dirccted against ffae award dated 10,5*2007 passed by the Addiffooal Motor Ascident Claims Tritounal, Khaira^irh in MACC No. 33/2006, whereby, the Tribimal has M.A./ONo. 984 of2007 awarded a sum ofRs.48,769/- a3ongwith@ 9% perannum fi?om the date offiling ofthc daim Petition i.e. firom 10.4.3006 till its x^ealization, on aocount of personal mjiiries sustamed by tbe ctedmant/appellajit (2|| The ClaiEaaEit/appellaiit has fitexi fhis appeal for eiihaocemeiit ofthe awaixl, (3) The brief facts are tfaat on 7.2.2006, fhe Minidor of respondCTit No.4 bearing registr^aon No. CG 08 B-0938, in which» the appellant was teaweliag, met witii axi accident The appeUant pleaded fhat the accideiit was caused by xasti and negligent drivu^ ofTata Indica vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 ZD 7585, driven by respondent No.l, owaed by le^poadexit No»2 axid ixisured by respondeiit No»3, It was also pleadcd fhat fhe Mimdor was driven by fhe owner himself (respondent No.4) and xt was msured witli resporalexit No»5» Respondent No.2 demted tJbe claim saymg fhat fhe accidexitwas caused on acoount of rash aiid negl^gent driving of Mmidor by respondent No.4. Respondent Np.3 ie. insurer ofTata Indica Car pteaded fhat tlae drivers of bofli fhe vehicles were not having valid licenses aad they were driying fhe vehictes in breach of polfecies, fhercfore, the ssdd respondent was not responsible to pay fhe amount of<x>mpexisation* Respomlexit No. 4 pleaded that fhe accideiit hsd occurred on acoouiit of rash and iiegKgeiit driviag offhe Tata Ind&ca vehicle, whereas respoifedeat No.5, tfae iasurer of Mmidor pteaded fhat fhe claimant would not be classifi^l as a fhird party^ as the claimant was travcdixig as a pas^^nger ia MiEudor, wNcli was registered as goods vehicle, fhierefoxe, iffhe Hability is fixed on ac^ouiit ofrash axid negUgeat drivioLg of fhe Minidor, the owner ^iaU be responsible for fhe same. \.t (4) The Clafaiis Tribiuial, afier recoidiiig the evidence ofall fhe partiies, recx)rded a findmg fhat tfae accihlexit was caused due to rash and iiegUgent driviog of the Mmidor by respondent No.4, It ^ M.A.fQNo. 984 of2007 also xecoided a finding that siiice fhe drwer ofthe Mmidor i,e. respondent No.4 was driviag the Mmidor wifhout haviag fhe valid license aad the claimant was traveKng as giatiiitoiis passeager ia tlie said Miaidor, whfch was registercd aad iasured as a goods vehicle, the Insuraace Company of Mmidor would not be rcsponsible to pay fhe amount of compensation aod had directed for paymient of axaount of coi&peiisatioxi by respondent No.4 ie. owneroffhe Mimdor» (5) Learaed counsel for flie appeUant4tas pxessed tfais appeal oxriy on the git>und of quaxitum of awaid. His subamssioii was fihat fbe quaxitum has been assessed oa tbe lower side and loofehag to fhe iajuries sustaiaed by the appdlaait, fhe claim filed before fhe Tadibiinal shouM have beeii aUowed m fiill. . (6) We have heaxd tfae leam.ed coiuisel fbr the appeUant at length and have perused the rrooxds ofthe Misc. Appeal. (7) So fear as iajuries suflfered by fhe appellant is conceraedy the appellant has stated fhat he was told tfaat fais 3rd, 4A, 5A, 6A & 7th ribs were firactured aad for tfaat, he w^s admittel for the 5 days in Gyatd Hospital, Durg, Acscording to fhe appellant, he was rimidng a TV & Tape R^sorder repaidiig shop aad he was also seffixig ElectTooJcs items aiid was eanuxig Rs,9,000/- per month fiom fhe said shop. Besades fhe dxwe, he was also mnning S.T.D.-P.C.O and was eaniing about Rs.1,500-2,000/- per montii fix>m S.T.D.-P.C.O. and m. tliis mffluier, he was earmng Rs.12-13,000/- per monfh. He has ffaurtlier deposed fhat he was under tneatment for about 2-2 Ya monfhs. The appeUant had not fifcd any documentaiy evidence pertamiog to hia eaniiag fix>ia shop like iacome tex or sale-tax certificates, therefore, fhe Txibunal did not rcfy on hte evklence pertmxiiag to the iticome fix>m Etectroxuc repairmg shop. However for tiie S.T.D.-P.C.O., A bffl ofRs.1,692/- (Ex.-P/S) was filed, which was believed by fhe Tribunal and believiag fhat fhe appeBaiit had szrffered loss ofeanimg as his shop had to rcmain closed for two 4 M.A.rQNo. 984 of2007 II a m moafhs, fhe Tribunal assessed axi amount of Rs.25,000/ - m luinp suixi towaaxls fhe loss ofeanmig and i^dxis aiid sufifermg aad expenditare iacurred for keepixig an atteiidaat wifh the appellant diiring this period. Apart finom fhe abcwe, the Tribiiiial altowed fhe amouat of all medical biBs filed by fhe appeBaait ie. Ex.-P/9 to Ex.-P/12 and Ex.-P/l4 to Ex.-P/21 amountmg to Rs.16,269/-1. Besides fhe above, fhe Tribuiial ajbo awaided a sum of Rs.7,500/- as per bill Ex.-P/lS, wlubh was fited 0x1 accozuit of expenditurc iacurred ia conveyaxice of fhe appellaiit for treataient after tus dischargeA j&om fhe said faospital afier 5 days. In this mamier, a total suin of Rs«48,769/- has been awaxded to fhe appellant for fhe said iajunes sustaomed by MSSL (8) The appeBant hiad also pxixiuced a certificate Ex,-P/25, accoixlii^ to which^ he faad sustamed penaaxient diMtotement to fhe extent of 39%. In this rcgard, Dr. R. Sadani (AW-3) was examuied, who deposed tiiat as a member of District Mediteal Board, he faad exmmaed fhe ixyured on 20,4.2006 axid bad assessed the disability aud issued tfae certificate. In fhe cross- exaBiuiation, he admAtfced fhat he w;a.s iiot an orthQpeditfoii and Dr. Moti Ramani was also not an orfhopeditioxi. He also adiaitted fhat fherc is uo xaentioa about the ftactures m tfae certificate Ex.-P/25. He Iiad further admitted that fhe disablement certiffcates are issued afiter 6 monfhs of fite accident because fhere is a chance of reductfon of perceiitagp of disabtement after fhe treatment He also adxaitted fhat fhe wotd WT> has been written afiter ff35%^ m llie certfficate, which i&dicates that on tfae date ofissuance of oertificate, fhe patient was under treatment. Appreciatic^ all fhis> the Tribunal has not bas^i assessment of quantum on fhe certxficate and faas asses^ed fhe same as iEidicated supxa. (9) Ajfter heariog fhe learaed counsel for fhte appeUant a&d afiter consideriiig fhe CK>xiteats of fhe ixxipugned awaxd, if does not ap^ar to us titiat liie quantum ofdamages has either been wrongfy assessed or it bas been assessed oxi the tower side. The q M.A.fONo. 984 of2007 J.-\ Tcflbunal has altowed all fhe medfcal billa as also fhe bifl of esqpenditure iiicurred on aocoimt of conveyaiice and IEL additioii to fhat it has awaided lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- for loss of earaiag, physfcal aad ment@d agony axid on account of keepiiig an atteQdaxit ^ (101 In ihe matter of iState of Sai'yxMt mut Avw^wr -Vs^ Jaalrir Kwar aaA Others. fiMMOJ 7 SCC 4^4. the Apcx Court held in P&ra-7 that <(7. It has to be kept in view that tfae Tr&unal constituted uiider fhe Act as provid^i ia Sectkxn 168 is xequiced to make an awaxd determmmg fhe amoiiat of coaipensation whfcfa is to be m the real sense tfdamages*> which ia tuni appears to it to be ajust aiid reasonablg". It has to be Iwrae m xniiid fhat coinpensation fbr loss of lim.bs or Kfe caxi hanlfy be weighed m golden scales, But at ffae same time it has to be borae ia mind fhat the compexisation not exi^tel to be a wnidfaU fbr fhe vrctim* Statutoiy pjrovisioiis cfearty mdicate that the compensation xaust be ^just? aiid it caimot be a boimia^a; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittaxice. The courte tand tnibunals bave a duty to weigh tihie varbus factora aad quantify the amoiiat of compensatioii, wlucfa shoirid be just What wouM be <tjust" compeiisatian is a vexed queation, Therc can be no golden rule appKcable to all cases for measming fhe value of humaci life or a limb. Measure of daaiages cannot be arrived at by pxecise xnafhematical calculations. It wouM depead upon fhe particular facts and circumstaiices^ , and attendmg peculiar or special features, if any. Every niefhod or mode adopted for assessic^ campensat&on has to be considered in titie M.A.fONo. 984 of2007 bacl^roiind of "jusf coxiqiensation wfaich vs fhe pivotal consKleiation. TTiough by use of tihe expression <twfaich appeara to it to be jusf1 a wxte discrction is vested m the Trifounal, tbc detennnmtion has to be rational, to be done by a jiidicious appxoach and not the outooine ofwhimis, wM gaesses and aibitiarmess» The, eacpressioa ^jusf denotes equitgAitUy, faaxiiess aml reasonableiiess, suid non-aitoiteaiy. Ifit is not so it caimot be just^ (11) On atwve prmcxptes, in oiir <x)iisidexed VXEW^ fhe amouxit of compensation is fair^ rcasonabte, just aaad pxoper* We do not find any substance in tiiis appeal filed for enhancement of eoiapensation already awaxded to the appellaat by the Claims TribuxiaL The appeal is liabte to be disinissed aiid m accordiiigly disxaissed, Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vattt s~^.