Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, in a recent ruling, upheld  an earlier decision the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal confirming the on quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, presiding over the court, delivered the decision, stating that “there cannot be actual compensation for anguish of heart or for mental tribulations. The quint essentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.”

The case revolved around the tragic demise of Bachan Singh in a motor vehicular accident on November 25, 2010. The incident occurred when Singh was cycling from Dashmesh Nagar, Digiana to Satwari. At approximately 5:00 p.m., his bicycle was struck by a vehicle, bearing Registration No. PB05G/9961, driven rashly and negligently by Vijay Kumar (respondent No.3). This collision resulted in fatal injuries, leading to Singh's untimely death.

Following the accident, a claim petition was filed by Singh's legal heirs, seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,73,000/- as compensation to the claimants, along with an interest rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until its realisation.

The claimants, however, contested this decision, arguing that the Tribunal had incorrectly assessed Singh's monthly income at Rs. 6,000/-. They claimed that Singh, who worked as a Mason, earned Rs. 400/- per day, which should have resulted in a higher compensation amount.

During the proceedings, Paramjit Kour, Singh's wife, testified that her husband earned Rs. 400/- per day as a Mason. However, she admitted during cross-examination that Singh would sometimes be unable to work during adverse weather conditions.

The court dealt with the key question “whether the Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- or was their evidence to establish that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.12,000/-.”

The court noted that the only evidence presented before the Tribunal was the statement of Paramjit Kour, the wife of the deceased, who claimed that her husband, Bachan Singh, earned Rs. 400/- per day as a Mason. However, during cross-examination, Kour admitted that Singh faced periods of unemployment, particularly during adverse weather conditions. The court deemed this evidence insufficient to establish Singh's regular income.

Given the lack of convincing evidence, the court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to calculate Singh's monthly income at Rs. 6,000/-. The court reasoned that Singh's occupation as a skilled worker warranted this assessment, despite the absence of concrete proof of his earnings, emphasising the principle of granting "just compensation" as outlined in Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Compensation, the court stressed, should neither be excessive nor inadequate but should reflect a realistic approximation of the loss sustained.

Based on this assessment, the high court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to calculate Singh's monthly income at Rs. 6,000/-.  Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's original award.

 

Cause Title: Paramjit Kour and Ors v National Insurance Co. Ltd [MA No. 482 of 2012]