Back
2009 Supreme(Raj) 1354
2010(1) CCR 65 (Bom.)
(Bombay High Court)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shweta Dilip Mehta (Bobde, J.)
HON'BLE S.A. BOBDE, J.
HON'BLE S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Versus
Shweta Dilip Mehta & Ors.
First Appeal No. 969 with 1262 of 2008, decided on 14.12.2009
Sameer Tambekar, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in F. A. 1262 of 2008;
S.M. Dange, for Responent No.3 in F.A. 1262 of 2008 & for Appellant, in F.A. No.969 of 2008;
Tejpal S. Ingale, for Respondent No.1 in F.A. 969 of 2008
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Secs. 141, 142, 163-A, 166, 168 & 173 — Compensation claim for death and permanent disablement to the extent of 80-90% — Payment of compensation claimed on structured formula basis — Award of claims tribunal — Injured was 11years at the time of accident — Tribunal computed Rs. 21,23,848/- under various heads for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses — Quantum of compensation — Appeal for enhancement — Held — Appellant did not work at the time of accident — Second Schedule specifies Rs. 15000/- per annum income for non-earning victims — This income is wholly inadequate in the present time — Appellant was a bright student and having a successful future — Taking all contingencies, calamities and disadvantages, annual income of Rs. 1,00,000/- would be reasonable for computation of compensation — Multiplier of 18 should be applied — Accordingly appellant is entitled to Rs. 18,00,000/- as compensation toward loss of future income — Thus, appellant is entitled to compensation as follow:
(1) Amount spent by claimant till date of Tribunal award – 1,23,848/-
(2) Towards Physical pains and mental shock – 4,00,000/-
(3) Towards loss of amenities of life – 3,00,000/-
(4) Towards inevitable expenses – 23,25,000/-
(5) Towards loss of future income – 18,00,000/-
Total – 49,48,848
Award modified accordingly.
Appeal allowed. (Paras 24 to 26)
eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk;sa 141] 142] 163-d] 166] 168 ,oa 173 & e`R;q ,oa 80 ls 90% dh foLrkj rd LFkk;h fu%'kDrrk gsrq izfrdj nkok & izfrdj Hkqxrku dk nkok lajpuk lw= ds vk/kkj ij fd;k & nkok vf/kdj.k dk vf/kfu.kZ; & vkgr nq?kZVuk ds le; 11 o"khZ; Fkk & vf/kdj.k us ?kuh; ,oa v?kuh; gkfu;ksa gsrq fofHkUu 'kh"kZdksa ds vUrxZr 21]23]848@& #i;s x.kuk fd;s & izfrdj dh ek=k & vfHko`f) gsrq vihy & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vihykFkhZ nq?kZVuk ds le; dk;Z ugha djrk Fkk & vdekÅ ihfM+rksa gsrq f}rh; vuqlwph okf"kZd vk; 15]000@& #i;s fofufnZ"V djrh gS & orZeku le; esa ;g vk; iw.kZr% vi;kZIr gS & vihykFkhZ ,d rstLoh fo|kFkhZ Fkk ,oa lQy Hkfo"; j[krk Fkk & lHkh vkdfLedrk,a] vkink;sa ,oa vfgrksa dks ysrs gq, izfrdj dh x.kuk gsrq 1]00]000@& #i;s dk okf"kZd vk; ;qfDr;qDr gksxk & 18 dk xq.kd iz;qDr fd;k tkuk pkfg;s & rn~uqlkj Hkkoh vk; dh gkfu ds en esa vihykFkhZ izfrdj ds :i esa 18]00]000@& #i;s dk gdnkj gS & bl izdkj vihykFkhZ izfrdj ds :i esa fuEu dk gdnkj gS%&
¼1½ vf/kdj.k ds vf/kfu.kZ; dh frfFk rd nkosnkj }kjk [kpZ jkf'k& 1]23]848@&
¼2½ ekufld vk?kkr ,oa 'kkjhfjd ihM+k ds en esa & 4]00]000@&
¼3½ thou ds lq[k lqfo/kk;sa dh gkfu ds en esa & 3]00]000@&
¼4½ vkdfLed O;; ds en esa & 23]25]000@&
¼5½ Hkkoh vk; dh gkfu ds en esa & 18]00]000@&
dqy 49]48]848@&
&rn~uqlkj vf/kfu.kZ; mikUrfjr fd;kA
vihy Lohdkj dhA ¼in la[;k 24 ls 26½
2. It seems that initially the police in fact registered an offence against the driver of the Maruti 800 for rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal having examined the evidence on record found that the accident occurred due to the sudden detachment of the two front wheels along with the axle of the truck. Consequently, the truck driver lost control and collided head – on with the Maruti 800. This detachment of the front wheels occurred because the truck was old and not properly maintained. We find from the evidence before us that the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion in this regard and the accident did not occur due to any fault of the driver of the Maruti 800, in which the girl was travelling, but occurred due to the negligent maintenance of the truck. In any case, whether or not the truck driver or owner was negligent has not been specifically contended before us by the respondent.
3. The present appeals relate to the Tribunal’s award of compensation, u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to the appellant by the Tribunal, which was claimed against the respondent. The appellant had initially filed a claim for Rs. 20 lakh in 1993, but amended the plaint on 4.2.2006 to a claim of Rs. 91 lakh. The Tribunal, as per its judgment dated 16.8.2007, awarded the appellant Rs. 21, 23, 848/-, computed under various heads, for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, caused by the accident. The appellant submits that this award was inadequate to meet all the expenses incurred and likely to be incurred and presses her claim for Rs. 91 lakh before us. We must mention here that an effort was made for settlement of the claim, however, it failed and we hence proceed to calculate the quantum of compensation which is to be awarded to the appellant.
4. The process of determining compensation by the Court is an essentially practical task and can never be an exact science. Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of injury and disability. As rightly pointed out in H. West & Sons Ltd. vs. Shepherd ((1958) ACJ 504 (H. L)):
“..money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered.”
However, making a monetary assessment of the injury suffered is the only process devised to compensate the victim. The process of making such an assessment, whether in case of death or injury, is provided in section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which requires that the Tribunals constituted under the Act determine compensation, which appears to be ‘just.’ Thus the Act vests a wide discretion upon the Tribunals. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty (2003 ACJ 1775 (SC)) needs mention here:
“It has to be borne in mind that compensa
