The court analyzed the legality and correctness of the compensation awarded under different heads and found that the claimant was entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 9,61,209 along with 9% interest from the date of filing the petition.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge

The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 provides for compensation in motor vehicle accidents, which should be equitable, fair, reasonable and not arbitrary. But then what would be the “just compensation” is a vexed question and there can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. It is more than settled that there must be material before the Court to arrive at a compensation and the same cannot be awarded as a windfall or bonanza for the victim and the statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be just and not a source of profit or an extravagant one and unjust enrichment should be discarded. But at the same time, the compensation should not be a pittance.

2. The difficulty in awarding just compensation has been aptly pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another (2012) 12 SCC 274, wherein it was held:-

“2. Despite many a pronouncement in the field, it still remains a challenging situation warranting sensitive as well as dispassionate exercise how to determine the incalculable sum in calculable terms of money in cases of personal injuries. In such assessment neither sentiments nor emotions have any role. It has been stated in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associate Collieries Ltd. (No. 2) 1942 AC 601 that it is a matter of Pounds, Shillings and Pence. There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.

3. In Jai Bhagwan v. Laxman Singh (1994) 5 SCC 5, a three- Judge Bench of this Court, while considering the assessment of damages in personal-injury-actions, reproduced the following passage from the decision by the House of Lords in H.West & Son, Ltd. v. Shephard (1963) All ER 625 (HL): “My Lords, the damages which are to be awarded for a tort are those which ‘so far as money can compensate, will give the injured party reparation for the wrongful act and for all the natural and direct consequences of the wrongful act’ [Admiralty Commissioners v. Susquehanna (Owners), The Susquehanna 1926 AC 655]. The words ‘so far as money can compensate’ point to the impossibility of equating money with human suffering or personal deprivations. A money award can be calculated so as to make good a financial loss. Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards. When all this is said it still must be that amounts which are awarded are to a considerable extent conventional.” (Jai Bhagwan case (1964) 5 SCC P. 7, para 9)

4. In the said case in Jai Bhagwan reference was made to a passage from Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (16th Edn.) which is apposite to reproduce as it relates to the awards for non-pecuniary losses: (SCC pp. 7-8, para 10)

“10….In all but a few exceptional cases the victim of personal injury suffers two distinct kinds of damage which may be classed respectively as pecuniary and non-pecuniary. By pecuniary damage is meant that which is susc