Important points:
A person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-a-vis a family in a case of death-The initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution endures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is the claimant in O.P(MV)No.426 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which occurred on 11.04.2013, while he was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.KL-12/E-5225. At the place of accident, the jeep was hit by a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-58/G-3773, driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. In the accident, he sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of tipper lorry by the 1st respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.22,00,000/-under various heads.

2. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent driver and the 2nd respondent owner remained absent and they were set ex parte.

3. The 3rd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the tipper lorry involved in the accident; however, denying the negligence alleged against its driver. The insurer contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive.

4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. The document marked as Ext.C1 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, K.R. Hospital, Mysore assessing the permanent disability of the appellant/claimant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence.

5. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of tipper lorry by its driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,14,933/-, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit, with proportionate cost, and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award.

6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is before this Court in this appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/insurer.

8. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads.

9. In State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur [(2003) 7 SCC 484] the Apex Court held that the Tribunal under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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 that the compensation must be 'just' and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance.

10. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(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