S. C. MOHAPATRA, V. P. GOEL, JJ.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the insurer. Claimant aged about 42 years was moving in his car on 9. 4. 1991 when a truck in respect of which risk has been covered by the appellant hit the car. This resulted in serious injuries on the body of the claimant and it is in evidence that half of his body has been paralysed. Even after long treatment in sophisticated hospital, a special bed has to be used for his rest. In this background taking into consideration the expenses which were incurred for medical treatment, the expenses that would be in all likelihood incurred, cost of special bed, cost of repair of the car and employment of an assistant throughout the life for managing daily affairs, Tribunal has awarded compensation of rs. 8,00,000/ -. Thus, the compensation awarded includes pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.

( 2 ) MR. Vineet Saran, learned Counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that unreasonable quantum of compensation has to be interfered with in this appeal. We can only state that determination of compensation cannot be in a strait-jacket formula. What compensation is to be awarded depends upon the nature of injuries, status of person, effect of injury on the person in future and also the mental and physical pain that the injured has sustained. Therefore, in case insurer intends to challenge the compensation, clear evidence should be made out by it by making enquiry through its agents and should bring materials to record about the quantum that is payable.

( 3 ) INSURER is a nationalised company. Apart from contract in terms of the policy, statutorily it is made liable to pay a compensation where vehicle in respect of which it has covered the risk causes the accident. To discharge its liability, duty is cast on officers of the insurer through whom it operates having no living mind, to make enquiry to find out whether the injury was on account of negligent driving of the vehicle in respect of which it covered the risk, no sooner it gets information that such vehicle has caused accident. If earlier no information has been received, by receipt of notice from Tribunal, it becomes aware of it. On enquiry when it finds facts and comes to conclusion that on account of negligence in driving the vehicle, injury or death has been caused, it should offer the amount to the injured or dependants as is determined by it to be fair and proper. It ought not to have litigation spirit to contest the application like an ordinary litigant.

( 4 ) FORGETTING this aspect of the matter, we find that insurer converted itself to be an ordinary litigant to fight out a litigation. We have found from the record that the injured aged about 42 years had a family consisting of mother, wife, a son aged 28 years who is useless for rendering any assistance to his father and two grown-up daughters who were being maintained by the injured from out of the agricultural income as well as income from a press. Tribunal has assessed the income of the injured from agriculture and press at Rs. 4,000/- per month.

( 5 ) EVEN if a person becomes completely invalid, he would have some income from agriculture by getting the land cultivated by others. If this income is affected in some circumstances, it should have been brought on the record by the claimant so that the adjudicating authority can make a guesswork as to the reduction of such income on account of inability. Same would be the standard in case of press business. It cannot be said that there would have been a total loss in the business because injured became invalid.

( 6 ) AFTER healing learned Counsel for both the parties and considering the materials and reasons given by the Tribunal keeping in mind public policy of speedy disposal so that compensation is made available to injured at an early date, we determine lump sum amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (six lakh rupees) to be a just compensation in this case. Since insurer ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document