SATISH KUMAR Vs. MURLIDHAR ISHARDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for bravity 'the Act') against an award of the Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated December 9, 1977, the grievance raised by the injured appellant is that the compensation has been quantified too low and should be raised from Rs. 11,300/- to Rs. 45,000/ -.

(2.) BRIEFLY recalled, the facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that at about 10. 00 A. M. on August 6, 1972, Satish Kumar and his brother Virendra Kumar were going on scooter No. D. L. M. 2836 in the city of Jodhpur. Virendra Kumar was driving the scooter while the appellant Satish Kumar was sitting on the pillion. The scooter was running at a very moderate speed. When the scooter reached Shastri Circle and took a turn to go towards Residency Road, truck No. R. J. Q. 8125 came at a terrific speed and suddenly struck the roar side of the scooter, and the right leg of the appellant. The impact and force was so big and heavy that the appellant and his brother Virendra Kumar were thrown aside and the truck dragged the scooter to a good distance. The appellant sustained multiple injuries His brother also received injuries. Both the injured persons were immediately taken to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, where they were admitted as indoor patients. The appellant remained an indoor patient at Jodhpur from August 6, 1972 to November 5, 1972. Thereafter he was taken to Jaipur where it was found that his right leg had shortened by 3/4 inch and the bone-joint did not remain in order. From Jaipur he was taken to Delhi. The appellant claimed Rs. 5000/- as special damages and Rs. 40,000/- as general damages. It was alleged that respondent Devisingh was driving the truck and the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving. The truck was owned by respondent M/s. Murlidhar Ishardas. It was insured with respondent No. 3 the New India Insurance Company. The appellant, therefore, submitted a claim under the Act for a sum of Rs. 45,030/-against the respondents, His brother Virendra Kumar also filed a separate claim, in which he demanded a sum of Rs 5000/- as compensation. Both the claim petitions were consolidated for trial. The claims were resisted by the respondents. On the conclusion of trial, both the claims were decided by a single judgment. A sum of Rs. 1808. 44 p. was allowed as compensation to Virendra Kumar while a sum of Rs. 11,300/-was allowed as compensation to the appellant by the Tribunal vide its award dated December 9, 1977. Virendra Kumar has not come-up in appeal. The respondents also did not file any appeal against the award whereby they were directed to pay the aforesaid amounts of compensation to the claimants. As such, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Devisingh is final for the purpose of this appeal. The appellant is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation allowed to him. He has, therefore, come for its being raised to the amount claimed by him in his petition.

(3.) THUS, in a case involving the loss of limb or its permanent inability or impairment, it is difficult to say with precise certainty as to what compensation would be adequate to the sufferer. The reason is that the loss of a human limb or its permanent impairment cannot be measured or converted in terms of money. The Courts still today have not been able to invent any standard or uniform formula to measure the compensation to compensate the sufferer for the loss of his limb or permanent disability. It is why the legislature has wisely left it to the discretion of the Court to say as to what compensation would be just in a given case. Section 110-B of the Act casts a duty on the Tribunal to fix compensation which appears to be just. THUS, the assessment of compensation when left to the discretion of the Tribunal to a good extent, becomes a guess work. The scope of arbitrariness in a guess work cannot be altogether rules out.