NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. VIBHA SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Supreme Court while adverting to the concept of grant of compensation under the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity 'the act') in the case of R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. , 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), referred to the decision rendered in the case of Ward v. James, (1965) 1 All er 563, wherein it had been expressed as under:

(2.) BE it placed on record that in cases relating to grant of damages in accidental death or injury, some kind of guesswork, sympathy juxtaposed with the totality of factual matrix, empathy by hypothetical disposition by putting oneself in the position of the victim are to be taken into consideration amongst other things. But, an eloquent one, while computing damages for the loss sustained, no one can expect the sympathy to be metamorphosed into total emotionalism and the empathy to be transformed into sentiments or for that matter converted to expanse of substituted neo-syllogism. It has to be determined on the rationale objective acceptable and presentable logistics and the compensation has to be awarded in terms of pound, penny and pence. One must bear in mind while determining the compensation that one is called upon to calculate the incalculable, compute that is difficult to determine and award damages, which, in a way, have to be in the realm of just and fair compensation.

(3.) WE have stated so in the beginning as the present factual matrix exposits a sad-sad scenario and frescoes the agony, anguish and the trauma of a 19 years young colleen who on the unfortunate date of 22. 8. 2003 about 12. 15 p. m. while proceeding from Nutan College to her residence by a Kinetic Honda bearing registration No. MP 04-HS 4201 met with an accident as the offending Maruti car bearing registration no. MP 04-HA 4749 driven by the owner of the vehicle dashed against her vehicle, as a consequence of which she fell down and sustained grievous injuries on her head and legs. She also sustained certain internal injuries. She was carried to the fracture Hospital and she remained there up to 23. 8. 2003. On X-ray being conducted it was found that both legs of the claimant had sustained fractures. CT scan was conducted in the Bhopal Memorial Hospital for head injury. She remained admitted in kasturba Bai Hospital for 23 days. In the process of treatment, operations were carried out, screws were fitted, bone grafting was done and she was pursuing her studies in commerce as an undergraduate student. Because of the injuries sustained she initiated an action under section 166 of the act before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Bhopal in M. V. C. No. 1 of 2004 for grant of compensation of Rs. 21,37,000 from the respondents on the ground that the vehicle in question was owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with the present appellant.