3:^T':3TFn^T, ^T{1^41<S, [c(^>!-y^< 'm^^T ^qy^-—"•""•••""•-——••-•••—•"•"•""-^ 200 3?i^?T IE^|^ (^f^^r) 3?ii?l^T^^ '^?^¥ll'^t^ |N-^al < i^nw^It^^i^T M.AfC) No. Appellant Insurer RESPONDENTS Claimant Misc. Appeal u/s 173 of ADDearance: Shri Saurabh Sharma, Shri P. Diwakar, Sr. Advoc^ite for respondent No.1. None for other respondent^. D.B: Hon'ble Shri Justid ^HM^' ^Fi^ff ^ ft^ ^N^R ^^^r^^T 1588 of 2007 The |New India Assurance Company Limj<ed, through the Divisional Man^ger, The New India Assurance Corr^pany Ltd. Second Floor, Rama Tracfe Centre, Bus Stand Road, Bila^pur (Chhattisgarh) Ve^sus 1 Santbsh Yadav son of Pacharam Yad^v, aged about 25 years, Resident of :| through beside of Taj Kirana Stor^s, near Ravan. Murti, Rav^inbhatha, Supela, P.S. Supela, Bhil^i, District Durg (C.G.) Krisftna Kumar Chandrakar son of J.L. Cha|idrakar, R/o village Mokhla, P.S. Aars|ng, District Raipur (C.G.) Dr. |Sandeep Jain, son of late M.C. Jain| resident of Gudhiyaripara, Aar^ng, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Kail^sh Kukreja son of Shri Gidmal Kukfeja, aged 28 years, R/o Deepak Nag^r, Durg (C.G.) the Motor Vehicles Act.. cour|sel for the appellant. with Shri P.R. Patankar, Counsel eL.C. Bhadoo. J & Hon'ble Shri Justi<l;e Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. GRPRJ — FS/246- '.yo. l^ XI-iIC—78 3^ST ^WW^, ^Tfl'y^KS, (s)0I'y^< 37T^T^T f^rli<=h TT^TT 'STT^T 5h^icb _ .........M..B..CQ...T....£?..?J.P^ •W^IT ^qf^ ••••••••••••l";-••—-'•-•-••••••-"•-^[ 200 3TT^?T 1T5ra? ( 4^fl<sl<i^ ) '^rrw^f^r^^T 2- ORAL ORDER (21 L.C.Bhadoo. J. Heard. The Insurance Compa| Section 173 of the Motor Vehi^ dated 10th April 2007 Accidents Claims Tribunal, ground that the compensation] the claimant is on the highel <=M<Ll(<n^1<ri *41^<;lf '^\'fe(St' ^^K '^'^RW^TT^T .08.2007) pas^ed , Du^-g i iy has preferred this appeal under ;les Act, being aggrieved by the award >ed by the Fourth Additional Motor in Claim Case No.103/2005 on the amount, which has been.awarded to side. The Insurance Company has The brief facts necessarj that the claimant - Santosh Y£ sought permission from the Trjbunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the clair(n on all grounds. / for dispdsal of this Claim Appeal are idav was working as a driver in Maruti Van bearing registration No.C<j3-04-ZP/2646. On the fateful day i.e. on 13/9/2003 the claimant wa^ driving the Maruti Van and the said vehicle was insured with thej present appellant - The New India Assurance Company. The clai|nant was driving the Maruti .Van from Durg to Orissa. When the Jhalkhamaria, ahead of Mahs| No.CG.04-E/0223, driven by o|ie Krishnakumar Chandrakar, dashed against the Maruti Van whil^ on various parts of the body. hj Maruti Van reached near village - samund, Minibus bearing registration driving the Minibus in a rash and negligent manner, as a result cjf which, the claimant sustained injuries ie sustained injuryon the right eye and T^T ^1^1<^^, ^Tfl^^, ^01^^< ^Ti^T^T'f^W ^^ 'qrq^ST ^s^R .........................................................^^ ^^^ 3?i^?T Xj^? (^t^?^) ^^lW^n^lT^T 3 daimant underwent surgery. Th^ ^T^Rl^ ^Wff ^ fe^t'rf^?R '^3tRP:T3?i^T the patella of right leg was als^) fractured, as a result of which, matter was reported in the Police Station, Mahasamund and an off^nce under Section 279, 337,338 of IPC was registered. In conseque|ice of the said accident, ultimately, the right eye of the daimant wasjremoved. The daimant filed a claim case, claiming in all Rs.5,05,000/-|under allheads. The Tribunal after recordi|ig the evidence and after hearing iearned counsel for the partiejs vide impugned award granted Rs.14,508/- against the medical ^xpenses, Rs.25,000/- against pain, sufferings and mental agony aijid Rs.1,00,000/- against.disability, disfiguration, soclal ostracism, irjconvenience in daily activities and family needs, pain and sufferings |n future due to removal of right eye. The Tribunal also held that the (jslaimant was earning Rs.2000/- per month through his salary, Rs.50/-| in all he was earning Rs.38,150/-^ year and by applying a multiplier | [ by way of Dearness Allowance and (24,000 {2000 x 12} + 14,150) per bf 1SS, loss of income was assessed to be Rs.6,86,700/-. The Tribunal) further awarded interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application i.e[ 19/01/2004 and if the Insurance Iwithin the stipulated period, then the 1 awarded. Company fails to pay the amount] enhanced interest rate @ 9% was| Learned counsel for the a^pellant has not disputed the liability of the Company as also the am<j which has been assessed as Rs the reason that in the first instanc unt of Rs.14,508/-, Rs.25000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-. He submitted th^t the amount of Daily Allowance, 14,150/- per year is not justified for ^, no cogent and clear evidence has GRPRJ — FS/2 50,uoa ^^^ ^WW^, ^Tfi^t<o, ici<7i>l^^< B..Q:..C.O...':..I..^.I..a^ 'WI^IT ^^r^•--""•--""•"•••---•••••"•"•^"^ 200 ^T^?T ^(^^ (^^^) ^niir^^it^ ^N?311^T ^ IINI^, '^fl^R'€^^TT^T ^ admlssible been adduced, in fact the claim^nt alternative that amount was personal expenses, as and wh^r headquarter with the Taxi, therefo| to the claimant. He further submitted loss of right eye, the claimant is from his own evidence in para 7, Newspaper Agency, through whic^ Therefore, on account of the said| Rs.1000/- per month as he is not was earning Rs.2000/- per monf Tribunal. On the other hand, supported the award of the Tribur|al sustained 100% disability, therefc^re, from Rs.2000/- per month as Having heard learned coun^el the record, in which, the claimant categorically admitted that after th^ the vehicle, therefore, he is runrjiing which he is earning Rs.1000/- From the above evidence on account of accident and loss of Rs.1000/- per month, as| Newspaper Agency. So far as cl^im was receiving that amount.In to the claimant to meet his |n he used to go outside of his fe, it cannot be assessed as a loss that it is true that on account of &ot entitled to work as a Driver, but |ie has admitted that he is running a he is earning Rs.1000/- per month. laccident, he has been deprived by |able to work as Driver, by'which he th, as has been assessed by the '^i^ifeNN' 'Hi^if ^ ^Q ^^i< ^^Tra^i leari|ied counsel for respondent No.1 and argued that the claimant has i, he has not only been deprived also From Dearness Allowance. for the parties, we have perused himself in para 7 of his evidence has accident, he is not entitled to drive a Newspaper Agency, through per|month. 4>f the claimant, it is established that depr^vation of driving, he has suffered a |he is earning Rs.1000/- through a > cl^imof the claimant about Dearness GRPRJ — FS/24C ^,000. 3^T ^t-^l^^, e>Ti1y^|(3, isi"6!{^< ^ ^........^..^....-....r.^ ,„ 3?I^9T ^^? (^f^^?) ^it?r^1^t97 ^H^IR^T ^^r 1 ^^IW^^^lt^ r anll beihg Allowance is concerned, the sam< he used to earn that amount as vehicle outside the headquarter against the personal expenses amount cannot be considered as not necessary that his vehicle wasj and that cannot be treated as a pe| no evidence that the Maruti Vad claimant, was registered as a Ja\ issued by the R.T.O., in fact, it was| In the matter of State ofl cannot be considered, as in fact, when he was required to take the ^nd that amount was being paid out of his house, therefore, that t>ss to the claimant. Moreover, it is [going every day to the out stations 1-manent source of income. There is which was being driven by the d and was running on Taxi permit aprivate vehicle. IHarvana and another vs. Jasbir Kaur and others. (2003) 7 S.C.C. to be kept in view that the provided in Section 168 is requirecf amount of compensation which is| which in tum appears to it to be borne in mind that compensation flpr wejghed in golden scales. But at|the mind that the compensation is n4t victim. Statutory provisions cleaijl mu3t be "just" and it cannot be a the same should not be a pittancjc duty to weigh the various facfors compensation, which should compensation is a vexed que§t| ^FII^R 'RFi^f °^fe^t Tf^$T? ^3t^H3^T .1484. the Apex Court held that it has TriblLinal constituted under the Act as to make an award determining the to be in the real sense "damages" 'just and reasonable". It has to be loss of limbs or life can hardly be same time it has to be borne in expected to be a windfall, for the y indicate that the compensation )onanza; not a source of profit; but s. The courts and tribunals have a and quantify the amount of >e just. What would be "just" >n. There can be no golden rule GRPRJ — FS/2 50,UOO. 3^r ^i^i^ ^rfrffTT^, teray ^ ^....^..^..ra...^...££^ ^?r ^w C^t^^?) (^ 200 a^r^^t^ ^^ ^^ ^iqfera^-RP^-^'fe^-d^rc '^'^[H^i^r GRPRJ — FS/24 Measure of damages cannot be calculations. It would depenc applicable to all cases for measuri^ig the value of human life or a limb. ^trrived at by precise mathematical upon the particular facts and Every method or mode adopted fo| circumstances, and attending p^culiar or special features, if any. ' assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of| "jusf compensation "which is the pivotal consideration. Though l^y use of the expression "which appears to it to be jusf a wide di^cretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, |to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it ^ vild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "jusf denotes equitapsility, fairness and reasonableness annotbejust. Therefore, while assessin^ loss and compensation to be paid to the claimant, the ultimate objejct before the Tribunal is always that the compensation must be just, |fair and reasonable and that should not be arbitrary or on the higheij side, at the same time, that should not be a meagre amount. Keeping this principle in r(iind and looking into the evidence of the claimant, who has stated tha|t after his deprivation from the job of driving, he is running a News|>aper Agency, through which he is eaming Rs.1000/- per rnonth, we|, without going into the correctness of his statement, are taking it as h|s eaming per rnonth. In view of this, this amount has to be deductec^ from what he was earning by doing the job of driving in order to aj-rive at a just, clear and reasonable •o,uoo. ' \ .^?P^iT ^W^ 75^' ^l^ll^^, ^Tft^^l^, [Gj<7')<^^< M^ <fc)- r^'s' /o^ •"•••-^ 200 ^ni9T ^(^s ('^t^i^) .^jt^^^t^ ^? ^VHWM^ Shyna ^TOl^C^^T^H^T ^ trie conclusion for entitlement of tt claimant. Taking into account the circumstance, we are of the should be assessed as Rs.1500/^ work, which was being done by months, by applying a multiplier Rs.3,24,000/-. In the result, the appeal is While maintaining the other heads, the amount of loss ofl Rs.3,24,000/- in place of Rs.6,86,'31 The Insurance Company i| amount as per this order within a which. the claimant shall be entitlt 8% p.a. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge |e compensation amount to the lo^s and looking to the totality of the view|that the loss of earning per month -^)er month looking to the nature of driver. Therefore, Rs.1500/- x 12 |of 18, the total amount comes to ^N^N ^T^Tf ^'fe^"tf^TT '^^R'^T^T p^rtlyallowed. conlpensatjon amount awarded under earning is reduced and modified to ?|00/- directed to deposit the modified ()eriod of 30 days from today, failing ^d to interest @9% p.a. instead of 8W";£'^ (a§e GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50,UOO. .,