Point of Law: Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the concept of ‘just compensation’ and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against the Judgment and Order dated 16.06.2015 passed by learned Member MACT No. 2, Kamrup(M) in MAC Case No. 366/2013 awarding compensation of Rs. 28,33,583/-only in favour of the claimant/respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 29.08.2012, minor son of the claimant while travelling in a vehicle bearing No. AS-14-3791(Tempo) from Chatemari towards Ghoga and when the said Tempo reached at Chatemari, under Mukalmua Police Station, the son of the claimant fell down from the said Tempo, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries on his person including head. The injured was immediately taken to GMCH, Guwahati. Thereafter, he was shifted to Sankerdev Netralaya, Beltola, Guwahati as well as Mechi Netralaya, Mechi Nagar, Nepal for his better treatment. At that time the injured was 12 years of age. Due to the alleged accident the injured has completely lost his vision and on examination doctor opined that he has become a permanent disable having 100% disability, i.e. blindness.

As there is no dispute regarding injury of the minor Dip Ranjan Talukdar in a road traffic accident which occurred on 29.08.2012 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle AS-14-3791(Tempo) and liability for the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point remains for consideration in the appeal is-

(a) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for reduction or enhancement.

3. In the appeal, a specific ground was taken by the respondent insurance company relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited reported in [(2014) 14 SCC 396], that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and therefore it is to be scaled down.

4. The nub of the learned counsels argument is that after the decision in Mallikarjun case (supra) computation of compensation in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for personal injuries of children in a motor vehicle accident causing permanent disability should be strictly adhering to the structure of compensation formulated therein.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has submitted that in an application filed for compensation the Court is required to ascertain the just compensation payable depending upon the evidence adduced by the parties. The Court can pass the award for compensation more than what has been claimed by the claimant in the claim application. The Court’s duty being to award just compensation. If the Appellate Court finds that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just, it can enhance the same and award the just compensation even in an appeal preferred by the owner or the insurer and even in the absence of any cross appeal or cross objections by the claimant.

6. In support of his submissions learned counsel has placed reliance on some case laws:-

a. (2019) 3 SCC 572 Union of India Vs. Rina Devi;

b. 2021 SCC Online SC 1083 Meena Pawala and Others Vs. Ashraf Ali and Others;

c. (2011) 1 SCC 343 Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar And Another.

7. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in [(2017) 16 SCC 680] a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the concept of ‘just compensation’ and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception