SHRI DEEPAK GUPTA, J

1. These four appeals are being disposed of by one common judgment since they arise out of the one accident, in which two persons were injured. Both the injured persons have filed claim petitions claiming compensation.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 23.4.2005, two injured persons (Chandra Prakash and Chhotelal) were travelling in a trolley of the tractor bearing its registration Nos. CG10/A/7596 and CG10/A/7597 respectively; The said tractor trolley met with an accident and both the persons suffered injuries. They filed claim petitions claiming compensation.

3. Claimant-Chandra Prakash filed Claim Petition No.79 of 2005, in which, the Learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation and held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation amount but it directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the said award, claimant- Chandra Prakash has filed MAC No.621 of 2007 and the Insurance Company has filed MAC No.784 of 2007.

4. Claimant- Chhotelal filed Claim Petition No.94 of 2005, in which, the Learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation amount but it directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the said award, claimant- Chhotelal has filed MAC No.620 of 2007 and the Insurance Company has filed MAC No.731 of 2007.

5. No appeal has been filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle.

6. The issues involved in these appeals are (i) whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just compensation and (ii) whether the Insurance Company could be held liable to pay compensation when the claimants were travelling as gratuitous and unauthorized passengers in the trolley of the tractor.

7. First, I shall take up the issue with regard to the assessment of compensation.

8. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as, (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges etc., (iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of the body, and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. The damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in rupees and paisa.

9. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins upon the Courts to do. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be just token damages. There are numerous cases where the principles for grant of compensation have been enunciated. It would be relevant to quote pertinent observations from a few.

10. The following observations of Lord Morris in his speech in H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard, 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England) are very pertinent:

"Mo