JULIAN Vs. PEETHAMBARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Quilon in O.P. (M.V.) No. 2000 of 1985. The claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of Daisy wife of Janias Julian who died in a motor accident on 12.9.1984 at about 3 pm at a place called 'Neendakara' on NH 47 claiming compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. After the enquiry the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 81,700/- with 12% interest. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle were made liable to pay the compensation. The appellants in MFA No. 512 of 1990 are the claimants whereas the appellant in MFA No. 554 of 1994 is the owner of the offending vehicle. The case of the appellants in MFA No. 512 of 1990 is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. On the other hand, the appellant in MFA No. 554 of 1990 pleads that the liability to pay the compensation shall be fastened on the insurer of the vehicle, who is the 16th respondent therein.

(2.) On the date of accident the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle, tempo van KRO 4110. The case of the claimants was that the above vehicle was driven by K. Pavithran, the second respondent in the claim petition at the time of the accident and that the death was due to his rash and negligent driving. Therefore, they filed the claim petition claiming Rs. 1,700/- under Part.1 and Rs. 98,300/- under Part.2 as compensation. The insurer of the offending vehicle M/s. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. the third respondent before the Tribunal, contended that the policy No. 42331/4/O/MV/206/84 was issued in the name of K. Peethambaran (owner) for a period from 26.2.1984 to 25.3.1985 as a private car and that the said policy was issued in respect of the vehicle bearing engine number D-236365 and chases number 242539. It was also contended that Daisy who died in the accident was an unauthorised passenger in the said vehicle, and hence claimants were not eligible to claim compensation from the insurer even if there was a valid policy. The further case is that the owner of the vehicle failed to furnish the duly filled and signed claim form together with the driving licence of the driver and the R.C. book for verification. Thus it was contended that the policy conditions have been violated by the owner of the vehicle.

(3.) In so far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, namely, Rs. 81,700/- the appellants in MFA No. 512 of 1990 pleaded that the Tribunal grossly erred in not allowing the entire compensation of Rs. 1 lakh claimed by them. On the other hand, the owner of the offending vehicle, the appellant in MFA No. 554 of 1990 attacked the award on the ground that the compensation awarded is excessive. The legal heirs of the deceased claimed an amount of Rs. 1,700/- for transport to hospital, damage to clothing, funeral expenses etc. under Part.1. The Tribunal after the inquiry allowed the said claim in full. Under Part.2 they claimed an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 88,300/- for loss of earning power. PW. 1, the first claimant, the husband of the deceased, disposed before the Tribunal that his deceased wife was aged 45 at the time of death and she was employed in Shaji Peeling Shed earning monthly income of Rs. 1,000/-. The Tribunal considered the claim for pain and suffering, permanent disability and loss of earning power together and awarded Rs. 80,000/- as the just and reasonable compensation. Under S.110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Claims Tribunal shall after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard hold an inquiry into the claim and make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. What is the meaning of the term 'just' It is derived from the Latin word 'Justus'. Though it has various meanings it is often governed by the context. In the context of award of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases, the word 'just' has been used in a very wide and comprehensive sense. The expression 'which appears to it to be just' confers wide discretion in the Tribunal in a matter of determination of compensation. However, the determination cannot be arbitrary and must be based on certain data establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred and the compensation to be awarded. Applying this test, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded in this case is arbitrary. In this context it has to be observed that unless sufficient materials are made available by the parties, it may not be possible for the Tribunal to determine the compensation in a correct and proper manner. Of course, the Tribunal while fixing the total compensation in this case did not actually decide the monthly loss of contribution to the dependents and the multiplier to be adopted for fixing the total loss of dependency. But this by itself will not make the determination arbitrary or unreasonable. All the above three heads were considered together and the Tribunal thus passed an award granting a total compensation of Rs. 88,300/- as against the claim of Rs. 1 lakh. The only argument advanced before us is that the amount of 'compensation awarded shall be enhanced to Rs. 1 lakh as claimed. But no materials are produced for such enhancement. Likewise no material is available to reduce the amount of compensation as argued on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle. Considering all the aspects of the case, we feel that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this case. No justifiable reasons exist for interference with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. We therefore, disincline either to enhance or decrease the amount of compensation awarded by it. In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.