http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5523 of 2003

PETITIONER: State of Haryana and Another                             

RESPONDENT: Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Ors.                                               

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/08/2003

BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

(Arising Out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.21267 of 2001  

ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

    Leave granted.

       Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and  propriety of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of High  Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, dismissing the  appeal filed by the State of Haryana and General Manager,  Road Transport, Fatehabad, the present appellants.

In a nutshell, the background facts relevant for the  purpose of dealing with this appeal are as follows:

       One Jagga Singh (hereinafter referred to as ’the  deceased’) lost his life in a vehicle accident on 3.2.1999.  His widow (respondent no.1) and minor son Sewak Singh  (respondent No.2) filed claim petition under Section 166 of  the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ’the Act’) for grant  of compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs.  In the claim  petition the mother of the deceased was impleaded as  proforma respondent.  The claimants asserted in the claim  petition that the vehicle involved in the accident was owned  by the Haryana Roadways and one Om Parkash was driving the  vehicle bearing no. HR-39-0418. It was pleaded that the  deceased was 25 years old, was an agriculturist and was  earning about Rs.10,000/- per month by cultivating his  agricultural land and from his avocation of purchasing and  selling cattles,  and by selling milk.

       The claim was resisted by the appellant-Haryana  Roadways by taking the stand that there was no rash and  negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and in  any event there was contributory negligence on the part of  the deceased.  The claim was also resisted on the ground  that amount claimed was highly exaggerated, without any  rational basis and there was no material to show as to what  was the deceased’s income and the deprivation of financial  contribution by the deceased to his family.  Another claim  petition was filed by one Ajaib Singh who stated to have  been injured in the accident in question.  We are not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

presently concerned with his case.  Motor Accident Claims  Tribunal, Fatehabad (in short ’Tribunal’) by order dated  27.3.2001 held that the claimants were entitled to  compensation of Rs.6.5 lakhs for loss of pecuniary benefits.  It was further stipulated that the claimants would be  entitled to the interest @ 9% on the amount of compensation  from the date of application till realization. For  determining the compensation the Tribunal held that the  monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably assessed at  Rs.4500 per month. After deducting Rs.1500/- for personal  expenses, the Tribunal took Rs.3000/- per month to be the  contribution and multiplier  of 18 was applied as per second  schedule to the Act. The appeal before the High Court filed  by the present appellants was dismissed on the ground that  there was no infirmity in the award.

       Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that with  practically no evidence the Tribunal and the High Court  proceeded to award Rs.6.5 lakhs. There was not even an iota  of evidence to substantiate the claim of agricultural income  from about 4 acres of land and there was no evidence that  the deceased was having any income from sale of milk or  cattle.  The High Court having accepted that there was no  material to show that the deceased had any income from sale  of cattle or milk came to an abrupt and presumptuous   conclusion that monthly income was Rs.4500/-. There was no  material to show as to what was the type of land, annual  yield, if any, and  therefore, the award is not sustainable  in law,  and the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal.

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submitted  that the High Court has gone by the probabilities and the  realities of life.  Even if it is accepted that there was no  material to show the income from the agricultural or dairy,  a rational view can be taken about the possible income from  the agricultural land, which the Tribunal did and the High  Court give its seal of approval.

It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted  under the Act as provided in Section 168 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 the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be  a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not  be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh  the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation,  which should be just.  What would be "just" compensation  is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable  to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a  limb.  Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise  mathematical calculations.  It would depend upon the  particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar  or special features, if any.  Every method or mode adopted  for assessing compensation has to be considered in the  background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal  consideration.  Though by use of the expression "which  appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested on  the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be  done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims,  wild guesses and arbitrariness.  The expression "just"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non- arbitrary.  If it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C.  Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (AIR  1998 SC 3191).          

It is clear on a bare reading of the Tribunal’s  decision as affirmed by the High Court that no material was  placed before the former to prove as to what was the income.   As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants,  there was not even any material adduced to show type of land  which the deceased possessed.  The matter can be approached  from a different angle.  The land possessed by the deceased  still remains with the claimants as his legal heirs.  There  is however a possibility that the claimants may be required  to engage persons to look after agriculture.  Therefore, the  normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly  applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source.   Attendant circumstances have to be considered. Furthermore,  there was no material before the Tribunal to arrive at the  figure of Rs.4500 per month.  No reason has been indicated  to arrive at this figure.  In the light of what has been  discussed above about  "just compensation" the income  cannot be estimated without any material to justify the  estimation.  In the normal course, we would have remitted  the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. But    considering the fact that one young person lost his life,  and the matter was pending before the Tribunal and the High  Court for some years, we feel it appropriate to take all  relevant factors into consideration, and decide the matter.  Gauzing the relevant aspects, noted above, the monthly  income is fixed at Rs.3000/- per month, and after deducting  Rs.1,000/- for personal expenses, financial contribution so  far as the claimants are concerned is fixed at Rs.2,000/-  per month.  Worked out on the basis of multiplier of 18, the  compensation is fixed at Rs.4,32,000/-. The amount of  Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for funeral expenses is  not interfered with and thus the total  compensation comes  to Rs.4,34,000/-.  The rate of interest i.e. 9% per annum as  fixed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court is  appropriate, and does not need any alteration. After  adjusting the sum which was deposited pursuant to the order  of this Court dated 14.12.2001, the balance amount along  with interest shall be deposited within three months from  today before the Tribunal.  On the deposit being made along  with the amount already deposited, a sum of Rs.3 lakhs shall  be kept in the fixed deposit in the name of the claimants  and a sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in  the name of Smt. Baldev Kaur, mother of the deceased. They  shall be entitled to draw interest on the deposit, which  shall be re-deposited for further terms of five years.  In  case of urgent need, it shall be open to the claimants to  move Tribunal for release of any part of the amount in  deposit.  The Tribunal shall consider the request for  withdrawal and shall direct withdrawal in case of an urgent  need and not otherwise of such sum as would meet the need.  It shall be specifically indicated to the Bank where the  deposits are to be made that no advance or withdrawal of any  kind shall be permitted without the order of the Tribunal.  It shall be open to the claimants to approach the Tribunal  for variance of the order relating to deposit in  

fixed deposit, if any other scheme would fetch better  returns and also would provide regular and permanent income.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated. Costs  made easy.