'mmm ammm \ ‘ k\ APPLICANT: CLAIMANT -Ve 'SUS- RESPODNENTS: NON-APPLICANTS (MisceHaneous Appeal t nder Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988) 21 -6-2007:- Shri S.C. Verma, coun Shri N.K. Agrawal, Sr. for respondent No.3. Applicant/claimant Sh eela Chandravanshi, who is the mother of )out 6 years and widow of Hariprem Sheeia Chandravanshi, Aged about 34 years, W/o Hariprem Chandravanshi, Rlo Gaitara, P.S. Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) Nasimul Aktar @ Moti, S/o Moh. Gaisuddin Musalman, C/o Sampat Kumarshah, Koikata Road Service. Bhanpuri, P.S. KHamtarai, District Raipur (CG) 5ampat Kumarshah, Through Koikata Road Service. Bhanpuri, P.S. Khamtarai, District Raipur (CG) 2. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Divisionai Manager, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur. Single Bench: Hbn’hie Mr. Justice L.C. Bhadoo sel for the appellant. Advocate with Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate \\ deceased Sagar aged a 1"?“i XI-HC—78 WW,W¢,W W m wt 200 @ amt-m (W) mmm WW Wm %sii%n3n%:r v Chandravanshi, has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 20‘“ Novemher, 200 passed by the 15‘ Additiona! Mofor Accident aim Case No.36/2001under which Iearned Tribunal awarded compens ion to the tune of Rs.52,000l-. The claimant has pr ferred this appeal that award passed by the Tribunal is bad, illegal, inap ropriate and against the well settled principles of law, therefore, same de ewes to be modified and enhanced. The claims Tribunal ought to h ve calculated the compensation based on notional income as prescrib d under Section 163-A of the M.V. A‘ct. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 18- 8-2001 at about 5.25 pm. deceased Sagar aged about 6 years was traveling along with his fath r on $uzuki motorcycle No. M.P.-24/YA-2412. When the motorcycle was front of lndore Kamani Services, on Raipur Tatibandh Road, truck ing No.WB—25/4164 dashed against the motorcycle. The driver of t e said truck was Nasimul Aktar, respondent No.1 herein. The said truck was insured with respondent No.3 herein i.e. the New India insurance mpany Ltd.. The claimant tiled a claim claiming Rs.2,16,000/— for m intenance of the family, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses & Rs.15,, Ol- towards loss of affection, mental agony and shock, in all, claimant imed Rs.2,41,000/—. Learned Tribunal held that at the time of accident agar was aged about 6 years, therefore, no inference or presumption c n be drawn regarding his income, hence, minimum compensation of s.50,000/- can be awarded and Rs.2,000/— can be awarded against fu éral expenses, therefore, in all, Rs.52,000/- was awarded. \\ Claims Tribunal, Raipur ina l i b r o a XI—C——'78 H mw,m,m WW3? (13W) W m in 200 mmm WWW margam WWWiwW *WW “It has to be kept in View in the matter of State of Haryana and Anr. V. Jasbir- Kaur and Qrs. reported in 2003 (7) SC‘C 484 the Apex Court held that:- that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an‘ award determining the amount of compensation which is “damages" wh reasonable“. to be borne expected to b a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clea ly indicate that the compensation must be “just“ and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the ame should not be a pittance. The court and tribu als have a duty to weigh the various factors and q rantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. compensation golden ruie ap licable to value of hum life or a cannot be a rived at calculations. to be in the real sense in turn appears to it to be “just and ' lt has to be borne in mind . that compensation or loss of !imbs or life can hardly be weighed in gol en scales. But at the same time it has mind that the compensation is not \What would be “just” a vexed question. There can be no all cases for measuring the limb. Measure of damages by precise mathematical would depend upon the particulars facts and circ mstances, and attending peculiar or special featur s, if any. Every method or mode e i 1 a ‘ h i XI-H€—78 @ mum (W) 'mmm WWI W WWW mmifzém %sf&mala¥t considered in t! which is the pi\ the expression discretion is ve: has to be ration and not the o arbitrariness. expression "jus" denotes equitability,‘ fairiness and reasonableness, and non~ arbitrary. if it is of the Apex Court in the case of . Kaushlya . reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3424 the Apex of Tribunal granting compensation of death of 14 years old boy in motor aCCident it the said compensation is proper. Moreso, ther was only survivor. so, mother is the only survivor as argued by ilant that husband of the claimant and father ame accident. in that claim case, respondent latter and compensation to the tune of Rs.13 rded to the applicant/claimant. As the child ifore, having considered totality of the in a recent judgment Devi V. Karan Arora & Ore Court upheid the award ' Rs.1 ,00‘000/-. in that case, occurred. The COurt heid thz when father had died and mo in the present case ai iearned counsel for the appe of the deceased died in the s. No.3 has compromised the n iakhs has already been awa was 6 years' oniy, there circumstances and considerii Kaushiya Devi (Supra), i sompensation of Rs.1 iakh is \x ‘1e background of “just" compensation total consideration. Though by use of which appears to it to be just" a wide sted in the Tribunal, the determination al. to he done by a judicious approach itcome of whims, wild guesses and The i. not so it cannot be just." ig judgment of the Apex Court in the case of am of the considered opinion that if total awarded, that wiii be just and reasonable. W m tr-L 200 XI-HC—78 mam ammm In the result, the appeal succeeds. The award passed by the Tribunal js enhanced by Rs.48‘,00074 in addition to Rs.52,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant shall be entitled for interest @ 9% / on the ameunt of‘Rs.48,000/- fmm the date of filing of the application. ”TA/Siti— 1L£LE5&¥3CK) / Jud ge /T/ Barve