B H RANGAIAH Vs. H R V BASAVARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case illustrates the consequence of the apathy being displayed by the Courts in claims for motor accident compensation. The Courts have been lenient whenever a victim of a motor accident approaches the Court and taking note of the injuries sustained by the claimants award just compensation. But, now it is discovered that it is exceeding the limits and the apathy of the Court is being exploited. The present case from which the appeal is preferred is one such case where an exaggerated claim has been made for a very minor and trivial injury, if one may describe so, suffered by a person in a motor accident. The injury certificate produced shows that the claimant sustained abrasions minor in nature, tenderness also very minor nature over the body. Age of the claimant was 77 years. This provoked the claimant promptly to move the claim petition claiming Rs. 40,000. 00 as compensation. An exaggerated figure has been claimed when compared to the injury sustained by him. The Tribunal rejected the claim outright. No doubt, the Tribunal held out the reason for this, since the injury has not been proved by examination of the Doctor who treated the claimant. May be this may not be necessary in cases of this nature because even if he has been examined the injury on the face of it is not something that attracts award of any compensation. The Tribunal felt that if the claimant examined the Doctor and proved the serious consequence to the victim in view of his age which is claimed to be 77, the question of awarding any compensation could have been considered. Even this was not attempted to by the claimant and therefore the Tribunal felt that there is total absence of evidence, to establish that any harm was done to the claimant by virtue of this injury. It therefore, rejected the claim outright. In spite of this, the claimant has filed this appeal.

(2.) ). Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant argued quite at length urging that the Tribunal has failed to award reasonable compensation for the injury sustained. I am of the view that it is a totally misconceived notion that in every accident case an appropriate, reasonable compensation should be awarded irrespective of the gravity of the injury. The compensation, should be the statute contemplates a "just" compensation and it is not a "reasonable" compensation as claimed. A "reasonable" compensation may vary from claimant to claimant and from counsel to counsel, whereas, "just" compensation is fixed with respect to the nature of injuries sustained. In this case, there is no such injury that the claimant has sustained attracting the award of "just" compensation. It is to be noted that claimant has taken the matter very lightly and in a most cavalier manner. He ought to have led evidence and examined the Doctor to show the impact of the injury on him that he sustained in the accident. In that event the Court could have then at least attempted to ascertain as to whether there is a case for awarding just compensation. Not all injuries attracts compensation. There may be trivial or inconsequential injuries which do not deserve award of any compensation. This fact can be decided by the Tribunal only in the event of an expert like the Doctor who is the competent medical person steps into the witness box and depose before the Court and opine that the victim had suffered injury which deserves award of just compensation. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim made by the claimant in toto. I confirm the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) TIME is ripe for the Courts to take judicial notice of an unhealthy trend that is growing in the motor accidents claim jurisdiction. It is hightime that the Tribunal takes note of the fact there are being made exaggerated claim for compensation with respect to for minor injuries sustained, by an accident victim describing and camouflaging it to be very serious in nature and describing the claim as made for just compensation. It has come to the notice of this Court that there are several Tribunals also which falls a victim to such an exaggerated claim with unreliable evidence either accidentally or deliberately. It is only reasonable that Courts exercise its judicial power very judiciously in these matters so that only just claims are met and awarded just compensation as an undeserving award will have also to be satisfied by the insurance companies utilising public money. Consequence thereof would be that the genuine person who has suffered injury would loose the claim for 'just' compensation itself. The Appeal is dismissed of with the above observations.