Compensation in motor accident cases must align with the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and equity to ensure just compensation.

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the claimant in O.P(MV)No.3306 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, 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 04.09.2001, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-8/M-323. At the place of accident, the motorcycle was hit by a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KL- 15/3048 owned by the 1st respondent and driven by the 2nd respondent. In the accident, he sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 2nd respondent, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- under various heads.

2. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained absent and they were set ex parte.

3. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant and he was examined as PW1. The document marked as Ext.A9 is the disability certificate issued by a doctor assessing the permanent disability of the appellant/claimant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident.

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 the bus by its driver. Since negligence was found on the side of the 2nd respondent driver, the 1st respondent Corporation was held liable to compensate the claimant. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,25,100/-, together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition, i.e., from 24.12.2001, till date of realisation, with proportionate cost, and the 1st respondent Corporation was directed to satisfy the award.

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 KSRTC, appearing for the 1st 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. InState 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 be 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. InNational 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 of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability.

10. In the instant case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads reads thus;