IMPORTANT POINT
Expression "just compensation" though denotes a wide discretion with Tribunal in motor accident claim petition but determination has to be rational, to be done by judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.

Headnote:(i) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 166-Injury claim petition-Claimant, a mason by profession, bachelor, sustained injuries in accident, remained hospitalised for 7 weeks, suffered fracture of T12 Vertebra and damage to nerve system of whole body besides other injuries-Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2.20 lakhs-High Court in appeal by claimant enhanced it to Rs. 6.25 lakhs with interest at 9%-Appeal by State Transport Corporation-Term compensation and damages-Object of providing compensation is to place claimant as far as possible in same position financially as he was before accident-A person becomes entitled to damages for mental and physical loss, his or her life may have been shortened or that he can not enjoy the life which was curtailed because of physical handicap-Expression just denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness-Compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for mental and physical pain and suffering where claimant was hospitalized for 7 weeks was reasonable-Tribunal rightly took annual income of claimant at Rs. 12000/- and applied multiplier of 17 to assess future income loss to Rs. 2,04,000/- -For loss of marital life Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 75000/- and High Court enhanced it to Rs. 1.5 lakhs without any basis-Amount awarded by Tribunal restored-High Court fixed future expenses for medicine and wheel chair at Rs. 1 lakh amount fixed at Rs. 50,000/- -Claimant held entitled to total compensation of Rs. 4.5 lakhs with interest at 9% from date of application for compensation-Rs. 3.5 lakhs to be kept in bank fixed deposit for 5 years and claimant to avail interest. (Paras 14 to 21)
       (ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 166-Bus in which claimant was a passenger plunged into a pit by rolling down from great height-Defence plea that accident was an act of God-Plea was unsustainable.
       Held : Expression "act of God" signifies the operation of natural forces free from human intervention, such as lightening, storm etc. It may include such unexpected occurrences of nature as severe gale, snowstorms, hurricanes, cyclones, tidal waves and the like. But every unexpected wind and storm does not operate as an excuse from liability, if there is a reasonable possibility of anticipating their happening. An act of God provides no excuse unless it is so unexpected that no reasonable human foresight could be presumed to anticipate the occurrence, having regard to the conditions of time and place known to be prevailing at. For instance, where by experience of a number of years, preventive action can be taken. Lord Westbury defined act of God (damnum fatale in Scotch Laws) as an occurrence which no human foresight can provide against and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility. This appears to be the nearest approach to the true meaning of act of God. Lord Blancaburgh spoke of it as "an irresistible and unsearchable providence nullifying are human effort". (Para 8)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes that compensation must be just, rational, equitable, and not arbitrary. (!) - It discusses the assessment of non-pecuniary damages (pain, suffering, loss of marital life) and pecuniary damages, including methodology for loss of earning capacity and future income using appropriate income and multiplier. (!) (!) - It defines "act of God" and outlines when such a natural event can excuse liability, noting that it may apply only if no reasonable foresight could anticipate the occurrence. (!) - The Tribunal’s approach to determining compensation should avoid winds of whimsy and use a judicious, fact-specific calculation. (!) - The case restores the Tribunal’s original reasonable awards in several heads and narrows excessively high enhancements by High Court, particularly for loss of future income and loss of marital life. (!) (!) - The decision fixes total compensation at Rs. 4.50 lakhs in this appeal, with deposit and interest arrangements, and clarifies the handling of future medical expenses and deposits. (!) (!) - References to prior principles: compensation aims to place the claimant in the position prior to accident; not a windfall; non-exact science but rational assessment. (!) (!) (!)

What is the extent to which compensation for motor vehicle accident injuries must be "just" and rational, avoiding arbitrariness in award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act?

What is the proper method to determine loss of future income and the appropriate multiplier and annual income in a personal injury claim under the Act?

What constitutes an "act of God" in the context of liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, and when can it excuse liability?

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

Mahadeva Shetty (hereinafter referred to as the claimant ) suffered serious injuries on 4.6.1995 as a result of a vehicular accident where a bus bearing No. KA-01/F 5097 belonging to Karnataka State Road Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ) was involved. According to the claimant, the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of this bus. As a result of the accident the bus plunged into a ravine resulting in serious injuries to the spinal cord of the claimant and made him a paraplegic. He filed an application for compensation before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) & JMFC, Nanjangud, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) claiming compensation of Rs. 9.83 lakhs. According to the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act ) the claimant was a Mason by profession. The bus in which he was he was a passenger plunged into a pit by rolling down from a great height, and he sustained injuries and a few persons lost their lives on account of the accident. He was hospitalized for about 7 weeks i.e. days from 5.6.1995 to 23.7.1995. There was fracture of T12 vertebra and consequent damage to nerve system of the whole body below the hips and the body has been functionless. Limbs have become functionless permanently due to failure of nerve system due to accident and he has also lost sexual power. He was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month at the time of accident. It was stated that that he was of good health at the time of accident.

2. Stand of the Corporation in reply to the claim petition was that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving, but an act of God and that there was no rashness and/or negligence as claimed by the claimant.

3. On consideration of the materials on record and the evidence of witnesses examined, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2.20 lakhs. It was stipulated that the amount be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. from 28.12.1999, i.e. the date when claimant tendered evidence in support of the claim.

4. Matter was carried in appeal by the claimant before the Karnataka High Court for enhancement of compensation. The Corporation supported the order dated 24.5.2000 of the Tribunal taking the stand that there was no infirmity in the order. In appeal the High Court raised the amount of compensation to Rs. 6.25 lakhs. Under various heads, the amounts of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court are as follows :

Heading Tribunal High Court

(a) Pain & Suffering Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-

(b) Mental agony Rs. 25,000/- Both under the headinjury, pain and suffering

(d) Transportation Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/-

(e) Loss of marital life Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/-

(f) Loss of future income Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 2,55,000/-

(g) Future expenses .... Rs. 1,00,000/-

(h) Interest @ 6% from the @ 9% from the date of recording date of petition. Evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that without any rational basis the High Court has enhanced the compensation, while the Tribunal under the Act had indicated cogent reasons for the award made by it. It is pointed that the claimant was working as a Mason and he did not have permanent job. His engagement depended on several factors, like availability of engagements. When it rains, and in several other periods, normally a Mason would not have work. That being the position the High Court was not justified in taking of Rs. 15,000/- as monthly income. The rate of interest justified by the High Court is on the higher side. In any event the accident was an act of God and no compensation is p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 691

IMPORTANT POINTExpression "just compensation" though denotes a wide discretion with Tribunal in motor accident claim petition but determination has to be rational, to be done by judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.

What is the extent to which compensation for motor vehicle accident injuries must be "just" and rational, avoiding arbitrariness in award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act?

What is the proper method to determine loss of future income and the appropriate multiplier and annual income in a personal injury claim under the Act?

What constitutes an "act of God" in the context of liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, and when can it excuse liability?

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
Expression "just compensation" though denotes a wide discretion with Tribunal in motor accident claim petition but determination has to be rational, to be done by judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.