-S^Sf ^NI^, ^Tn^^Ko, K^l'y^. . ^•Md ^TG Nl^dl sb*4(<sb 3?T^T'^Tf^;^7 ^^T ^^l ^H\^ wi, 200-7 311^5T x?^T ((ic<H<^<^) '^TT^R';^T ^TI^I RESPO.NDENTS j 1 2. Slrri Manoj Mishr, ®bk^41^^fIR^f ^fe^ <rsi^i< '^^Rpl^l^T MA. ICI N0.996/200T Sapaii Dewaiigan, s/o Shri NJ<, Ue^jmigaii, agecl about 33'yeai's, Occupa.tioii Advocate, R/o Oraiia Ce.mp AdawaJ, P.0, Ada¥7aJ,TeJisil Jagdalpur, Distt Bastar (C.G) Krishua Kumar Nctam, s/o late Kaoilal Netam, aged about 26 years, R/o D.N.K. Colony, Koadagaon, P.0, Kondagaoii, Distt, Bastoa'(C.G) Lainps Masiager, Koiidagaon, Bastar, KondagaQH, Distt, Bastar (C.G) Natioual Insurao.ee CoiQ.pany/ Upper Storey of Central Bank, near R.M.S. Office, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastai~(C.G.) j 173 of Act. , coiirisel for the appellaBt. DB.; LA;. BHADQO, J. & HON'BLB SHR3 S^mL KUMAR SSHHA, J. L.C. J: .--^v iORAL (03.09.2007) \A XI-HC—78 3^T ^IHJ^, ^Tfiy'Ko, fs|01-M^< .. ^.:h^l..^°:..l ^INdl ^b^lcb' ^ 2007 3H^T ^W (li?^^) '3T!^F^T^N' ^I^T 3?T^['^lt^' ^^rrw^rf^r3^r -1-- chHid^l'1 "PITR^ff '^,fe(^ ^R>i^i< ^ ^fOT 3??i^r . This is claimanf'd Vehicles Act for enhancA accident, The hrief faci was going on a motor h| Vishrampiiri to tJagdalpi wlien he stopped his M4 appeal filed u/s 173 of the Motor sment of the aw.Rrri, who met with an s are that on 03.3.3005 the claima-nt kf hearing Regn. C. 0.17 B 9901 from ir. At ahoiit 8,30 p.m., in the mght ^for Cycle in front of Sethiya Hotel at Kon^agaon, one Metad^or hearing Regn.No.C.G. 17 Z.B./0194 whico was being driv^n by respoudent -no. 1 rashly arxd iiegligently, riashed agai which, t1ie claimant siist4 was fi'actiired and therel He was immediately taN givi-ng pnTnai-y- treatment} tJagdalpur. Thereefter, hr| Dr,NaveeD Giipta coDdiic| the cla-imant was dischari ost tl-ie Motor Cycle, as a resiilt of tined i-ojuries. His left hiimoroiis hoiie WRS dislocation scRpiilar hone joint. n to Kondagaon Hospital where after he was shifted to Maharam Hospital wa?» shifted to Raipisr Hospital where teri operation ou him on 8,3.2005 and ;ed on 9.3.2005. Tlie learaed tribun^t tias passed an award to the tiroe of Rs. 1,31,656/ - as foltows: Rs.RO,000/-forpa n and siifferiDg, mentel agony, Rs.37,656/- for niddical and trave11ing expenses, Rs.36,000/-forlo^ Rs. 3,000/- for s^ecia? riiet Rs. 5,000/- for ofher expenses. ^s ofiBCOiTie fbr tt^ree montlis, \A XI-HC—78 •3:S3f ^IHI^, ^Tfl^<l<o, (st<7')l'M^< -_...'n;...^c..c)....^.0:., till^dl tbNlch W^ 200^ 3^?T'q^7 (^S^^) ^T^I^T'f^fN' TCT'a^^w^ '^nw ^rftcT 3i^^i -^- We have heard le| penised the records as w^ In Para 16 of tlii meDtioned that diiring <| who treated a~nd operate} clais'siant is yo-ong man cj claimasit bei'og yoiing m\ there was fast reuniou there is possibility of a go| He ba$» ftirther admitted was not effected hecaiiise therefbre, looking in t1 evidence, we are of coiTipe'osation given on a1 Kaur fmj& Ors. (2003) 7 deteniiiining the amount 4?^i<rl^)'4 'HPR^ff ^1^c^ xfa^K ^^iRiH^i^i imed counsel fbr the appellant and J1 as the award of ttie tribii'nal. R Rward, the lea'rned tribunal has ros^ examination, Dr.Naveen Giipta, ;d the clainiRnt, tias sfsted that the 32 years. He tias adm'itted that tlie rn, in <"OiBparison to etderly person, >f bones. He ha?» also adniitted tl-iat |od resiilt, if proper treatment is giveu. ftat writing capecity of the claimant ie siistaiiied frectiire on the left liand^ e natirre of injiiries and raedicel }the considered opinion that tlie heads 'mentioBed above, is just and reasouable. In the rn.at-t.er of Stlpte ^f Harynncs. At&n F. -Jas&Ir the Apex Cmirt held that "Tt has to he kept in view th^t the Tribiinal eonstitijted iinder tlie Act as provided in Sectiop 168 is reqirired to make an award |f <''omperisation whiclii is to be iu t1ie i~eal sense <'damages5? whic|^ in tiim appears to it to he "juist and i~easonah1e'\ It has to he ^o'me iri mind that compensation for loss oflimbs or life can ha|Tl1y be weighed in gotden scales. Biit at the saiae tirae it h4s to he bo-roe 'm mrnd that the \.< XI-HC—78 3^T ^l<4i^<^, ^TflyJI(S, fs|<ri»iy^< ^^^^...M...fe..LO.,,.a.^., 'STT^T^ f<'<J<=h ^T^TT 'S^^T^rqf^F "^ 200-^ 3irit?r ^^? (^1^<^) '^nw^rf^T 3?i^r ^ cannbt weifel'i compensatioTS is not expect^ Statiitoiy provisions clearh miist he "jiisf' and it profit; biit the same shoiilci tohiina1s have a diity to the amioiint ofcompensationj be ajnsf? compensation is golden ni1e app1icah1e to a1] human 1ife or a 1imb. Measii bv Drecise Tnat'heniatical particTilar facts and t-^irciimj special featiires, if any. assessing compensetion backgroimri of ajiistw conj eonsifieration. Thongh hy ii?t to it to be jiisf a wirle riiscij determii-iRtion has to he r approach and not the oiit^ arbiti'Rriness. The expres| faimess and reasonahlenessl cannot be jnst.^ Hsiving coiitsidered th^ given hy the Tribiinpl RS a] Coiirt pnd after considerinel <=fr){^F<Yf4'1 ^l*4Qlf ^feT3t ^R^ ^3tiTFT3?n^T M to he a windfa11 for the victim. indicate th^t the compensation he a hon^nza; not a source of not he a pittance. The coiirts anrl the varioiis factors and qiiRntify which slioiilri he jiist, Wliiat woiild vexed qiiestion. There cmr he no cnses for measiiring the value of (re ofdameges cannot he amveri at ^nlations. Tt woiitd depend iipon the j^tRnces, and Rttenfling peciiliar or method or mode adopted for has to be consir1eiT:d in the Ipensation wliich is the pivotal |e of the expression "which appears 3tion is vesterl in the Trihiinal, the |tiona1, to be rlone hy a judicioii.s of whims^ wi1d gne-sses anri uon ajiist?? denotes eqiiitahi1ity, and i-ion-arhitT?iry. If it is 'not so it CRlcin1ations. E^eiy oiit<fcome material cn iTpcorril, the i-easoning so the ahove decision of the apex the totality of the circiimstances, \l XI-HC—78 3^cT "4|^|^<4^ ^Tfl^'KS, fc|01-H^< ^^ ^r f^-iich Tf^H 'STT^T $t)^icb /Raof _..U;...^..C.O......N.U.; ^SI^dl *^|ch -^ 200-7 3^1 ^T^ (^f^^ST) '^RTTWHft^T 3?T^T s~- uatiire of injiiries siistainerp in iTxcove?y, we are of coiTipensation amoiint awa| and reasonable and it i| Tlierefbi-e, this appeal is he flismisserl and it is dismli Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^8^F<n41i ^^ ^f^t ^R$R '^'3tRPT'3^T hy the daimant and the time taken tlie consiflered opinion that the M^ri in favoiir of the clainiant is iiist ^ not m^deqiiate in any manner. d4svoif{ of merit. TTie same is liable to lissed at the motion staqe. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge //