JUDGMENT

The appellant is the claimant in O.P(MV)No.698 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, 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 01.03.2005, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-5/L-1209. At the place of accident, the motorcycle was hit by a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KL-15/1230 driven by the 1 st respondent and owned by the 2 nd respondent. In the accident, he sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of bus by the 1 st respondent, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads.

2. Before the Tribunal, the 1 st respondent did not appear.

The 2 nd respondent owner filed written statement admitting the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the driver. The 2 nd respondent contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by the appellant/ claimant. The 2 nd respondent disputed the age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition. The 2 nd respondent contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive.

3. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence.

4. 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 KSRTC Bus by its driver. Since the said vehicle was not covered by a valid insurance policy, respondents 1 and 2 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the appellant/claimant. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of

Rs.3,27,450/-, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 19.09.2005 till realisation, with a cost of Rs.8,175/-, and the 2 nd respondent was directed to satisfy the award within one month.

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

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent.

7. 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.

8. 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 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.

9. 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 o