State Of Haryana And Another vs Jasbir Kaur & Ors

Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and

propriety of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of High

Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, dismissing the

appeal filed by the State of Haryana and General Manager,

Road Transport, Fatehabad, the present appellants.

In a nutshell, the background facts relevant for the

purpose of dealing with this appeal are as follows:

One Jagga Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the

deceased') lost his life in a vehicle accident on 3.2.1999.

His widow (respondent no.1) and minor son Sewak Singh

(respondent No.2) filed claim petition under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for grant

of compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs. In the claim

petition the mother of the deceased was impleaded as

proforma respondent. The claimants asserted in the claim

petition that the vehicle involved in the accident was owned

by the Haryana Roadways and one Om Parkash was driving the

vehicle bearing no. HR-39-0418. It was pleaded that the

deceased was 25 years old, was an agriculturist and was

earning about Rs.10,000/- per month by cultivating his

agricultural land and from his avocation of purchasing and

selling cattles, and by selling milk.

The claim was resisted by the appellant-Haryana

Roadways by taking the stand that there was no rash and

negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and in

any event there was contributory negligence on the part of

the deceased. The claim was also resisted on the ground

that amount claimed was highly exaggerated, without any

rational basis and there was no material to show as to what

was the deceased's income and the deprivation of financial

contribution by the deceased to his family. Another claim

petition was filed by one Ajaib Singh who stated to have

been injured in the accident in question. We are not

presently concerned with his case. Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Fatehabad (in short 'Tribunal') by order dated

27.3.2001 held that the claimants were entitled to

compensation of Rs.6.5 lakhs for loss of pecuniary benefits.

It was further stipulated that the claimants would be

entitled to the interest @ 9% on the amount of compensation

from the date of application till realization. For

determining the compensation the Tribunal held that the

monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably assessed at

Rs.4500 per month. After deducting Rs.1500/- for personal

expenses, the Tribunal took Rs.3000/- per month to be the

contribution and multiplier of 18 was applied as per second

schedule to the Act. The appeal before the High Court filed

by the present appellants was dismissed on the ground that

there was no infirmity in the award.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that with

practically no evidence the Tribunal and the High Court

proceeded to award Rs.6.5 lakhs. There was not even an iota

of evidence to substantiate the claim of agricultural income

from about 4 acres of land and there was no evidence that

the deceased was having any income from sale of milk or

cattle. The High Court having accepted that there was no

material to show that the deceased had any income from sale

of cattle or milk came to an abrupt and presumptuous

conclusion that monthly income was Rs.4500/-. There was no

material to show as to what was the type of land, annual

yield, if any, and therefore, the award is not sustainable

in law, and the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal.

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submitted

that the High Court has gone by the probabilities and the

realities of life. Even if it is accepted that there was no

material to show the income from the agricultural or dairy,

a rational view can be taken about the possible income from

the agricultural land, which the Tribunal did and the High

Court give its seal of approval.

It has to be kept in view 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 to

be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it

to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind

that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be

weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has be to

be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be

a windfall for the victim. 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 Helen C.

Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (AIR

1998 SC 3191).

It is clear on a bare reading of the Tribunal's

decision as affirmed by the High Court that no material was

placed before the former to prove as to what was the income.

As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants,

there was not even any material adduced to show type of land

which the deceased possessed. The matter can be approached

from a different angle. The land possessed by the deceased

still remains with the claimants as his legal heirs. There

is however a possibility that the claimants may be required

to engage persons to look after agriculture. Therefore, the

normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly

applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source.

Attendant circumstances have to be considered. Furthermore,

there was no material before the Tribunal to arrive at the

figure of Rs.4500 per month. No reason has been indicated

to arrive at this figure. In the light of what has been

discussed above about "just compensation" the income

cannot be estimated without any material to justify the

estimation. In the normal course, we would have remitted

the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. But

considering the fact that one young person lost his life,

and the matter was pending before the Tribunal and the High

Court for some years, we feel it appropriate to take all

relevant factors into consideration, and decide the matter.

Gauzing the relevant aspects, noted above, the monthly

income is fixed at Rs.3000/- per month, and after deducting

Rs.1,000/- for personal expenses, financial contribution so

far as the claimants are concerned is fixed at Rs.2,000/-

per month. Worked out on the basis of multiplier of 18, the

compensation is fixed at Rs.4,32,000/-. The amount of

Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for funeral expenses is

not interfered with and thus the total compensation comes

to Rs.4,34,000/-. The rate of interest i.e. 9% per annum as

fixed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court is

appropriate, and does not need any alteration. After

adjusting the sum which was deposited pursuant to the order

of this Court dated 14.12.2001, the balance amount along

with interest shall be deposited within three months from

today before the Tribunal. On the deposit being made along

with the amount already deposited, a sum of Rs.3 lakhs shall

be kept in the fixed deposit in the name of the claimants

and a sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in

the name of Smt. Baldev Kaur, mother of the deceased. They

shall be entitled to draw interest on the deposit, which

shall be re-deposited for further terms of five years. In

case of urgent need, it shall be open to the claimants to

move Tribunal for release of any part of the amount in

deposit. The Tribunal shall consider the request for

withdrawal and shall direct withdrawal in case of an urgent

need and not otherwise of such sum as would meet the need.

It shall be specifically indicated to the Bank where the

deposits are to be made that no advance or withdrawal of any

kind shall be permitted without the order of the Tribunal.

It shall be open to the claimants to approach the Tribunal

for variance of the order relating to deposit in

fixed deposit, if any other scheme would fetch better

returns and also would provide regular and permanent income.

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated. Costs

made easy.