BINA RANI SAHA Vs. SUNIL DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the mandate of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called as the Tribunal) is to determine the compensation which appears it to be just. In AIR 1980 SC, page 1354 the Supreme Court po-Jnted out as follows :-

(2.) The principle regarding determination of compensation also came up before the Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi, Appellant vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, Respondents reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 where the Supreme Court pointed out how damages are to be assessed. The Supreme Court further pointed out that in determining the compensation some guess work is involved. The Supreme Court pointed out that in fixing the compensation some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the case is also involved but all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standard. This case depicts a double standard on the part of the Tribunal in fixing the compensation. On of the same accident concerning the same vehicle there was another case being Title Sun (MAC) No. 71 of 1994 before the learned Member of the Tribunal (S.R. Sinha) and in that case by judgment dated 23.9.95 the learned Member directed that the compensation shall be payable by the Insurance Company but in the case which is subject of appeal the compensation has been awarded against the owner. The other case before the learned Member was a case of injury and in that case the learned Member awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- and in this particular case though it is a case of death, the learned Member awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. We do not find any justification or ground to uphold this judgment. The admitted position in this case is that the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and there was no defence by the Insurance Company that they are not liable for the compensation to be awarded and the law is that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. There is no question apportionment or casting the liability on the owner and the driver. If that principle is not adopted the very purpose of insuring vehicle shall stand frustrated. Accordingly we hold that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation and that the finding of the learned Tribunal shall stand quashed.

(3.) The next question is what should be the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants. It is a case of a death of a person and he was a day labourer. There is evidence that he was earning about Rs. 3000/- per month. That claim may be on the higher side but that does not mean that there is no value of the life of a man in a country. For the ends of social justice it should be our endeavour to give pcroper value to the life of a man whether he be a man in the street or with a man of affluents. No doubt in the case of affluent man the amount of compensation should be on the higher side but we must make an honest endeavour to properly value the life of a man i.e. what has not been done in the case. In viewi of the fact an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is available for no fault liability in the case of death of a person Rs. 75,000/- at the end of the trial is really an adequate compensation.