Point of Law: Section 168 of Act, 1988, deals with concept of 'just compensation' and same has to be determined on foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standards. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of principle of equitability.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners 1 and 2 in O.P.(MV) No.1201/2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam are the appellants. The respondents 1 to 3 and the 3rd petitioner in the claim petition are the respondents in the appeal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (in short “Act”) claiming compensation on account of the death of Nevil.C.Wilson (deceased), the son the petitioners 1 and 2 and the brother of the 3rd petitioner.

3. The concise case of the petitioners in the claim petition is that on 19.1.2004 while the deceased was driving his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-7AP-4645 along the Kakkanad Palarivattom road, a bus bearing Reg. No.KL7/J 2673 (offending vehicle) driven by the 2nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motor cycle ridden by the deceased, who succumbed to the injuries. The offending vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and was insured with the 3rd respondent. The petitioners 1 and 2 - the parents of the deceased - and the 3rd petitioner - the minor sister of the deceased - are the dependents of the deceased. The deceased was doing business in sale of waste paper and he was getting an income of Rs.4,000/- per month. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.6,15,000/-.

4. The respondents 1 and 2 were set ex parte.

5. The 3rd respondent - Insurance Company - filed a written statement, inter alia, refuting the allegations in the claim petition. The 3rd respondent denied that there was any negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent also alleged that there was violation of the insurance policy condition. The 3rd respondent prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.

6. The petitioners produced and marked Exts.A1 to A19 in evidence. Neither party adduced any oral evidence.

7. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by directing the 3rd respondent to pay the petitioners compensation at the rate of Rs.3,22,430/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The compensation was directed to be apportioned at the rate of 40:40:20 among the petitioners.

8. The comparative table showing the compensation that was claimed by the petitioners and that was awarded by the Tribunal is as follows:-

9. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the various heads mentioned above, the petitioners 1 and 2 are in appeal.

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company.

11. The point that emerges for consideration in this appeal is whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

12. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], has 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 standards. The concep