STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.versusJASBIR KAUR AND ORS.

                       STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.                                 A
                                        v.
                           JASBIR KAUR AND ORS.

                                AUGUST 5, 2003

j             [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]                          B

          Motor Vehicles Act, 1988--Section 166-Motor accident-Death of
    agriculturist-Compensation-Claim of Rs. 10 /akh-Award of Rs. 6.5 /akh
    with 9% interest by courts below-Plea that assessment of income ofdeceased C
    was presumptuous without any evidence-Held: Compensation should be just
    and reasonable-Measure of damages would depend upon particular facts
    and circumstances and attending peculiar or special features-Income cannot
    be estimated without any material to justify the estimation-Normal rule of
    deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to the cases where agricultural
    income is the source-Jn the facts of the case compensation/or Rs. 4,34,000 D
    with interest of 9% is appropriate.

         Words and Phrases:

           'Just and reasonable '-Meaning of in the context of Motor Vehicles
    ~JM&                                                                         E
          'J' died in a motor accident. Respondent No.1, his widow and
    respondent No.2, his minor son filed claim petition under Motor '.'ehicles
    Act, 1988 for grant of compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. Appellant-Haryana
    Roadways to whom the vehicle belonged resisted the claim on the ground
    that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver; that the     F
    amount claimed was highly exaggerated without any rational basis and
    there was no material to show as to what was the income of deceased and
    the deprivation of financial contribution by deceased to his family.
    Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500 per month and
    held the claimant entitled to compensation of Rs. 6.5 lakhs with interest    0
    at the rate of 9%. In appeal, High Court affirmed the award.

          In appeal to this Court appellant contended that Tribunal and the
    High Court proceeded to award Rs.6.5 lakhs on the basis of no evidence,
    as there was no evidence to substantiate claim of agricultural income, and
                                        245                                       H
    246                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   income from sale of milk or cattle.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

           HELD: I. Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section
    168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is required to make an award determining
B   the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages"
    which in turn appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. Compensation for
    loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same
    time the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim.
    Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just"
C   and it cannot be a bonanza: not a source of profit; but the same should
    not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the
    various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should
    be just. (249-B, CJ

           2. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There
D   can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of
    human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise
    mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and
    circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every
    method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered
    in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal
E   consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be
    just" a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has
    to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of
    whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes
    equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not
F   so it cannot be just. (249-D, E, F]

          Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
    AIR (1998) SC 3191, referred to.

          3. In the present case no material was placed before the Tribunal to
G prove as to what was the income. There was not even any material adduced
    to show the type of land which the deceased possessed. The land possessed
    by the deceased st.ill remains with the claimants as his legal heirs. There
    is, however, a possibility that the claimants may be required to engage
    persons to look after agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the
    deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural
H   income is the source. Attendant circumstances have to be considered.
                           ST ATE v. JASBIR KAUR                          247
There was no material before the Tribunal to arrive at the figure of Rs.          A
4500 per month. No reason has been indicated to arrive at this figure. The
income cannot be estimated without any material to justify the estimation.
                                                      I249-G, H; 250-AJ

       4. Monthly income is fixed at Rs. 3000 per month, and after
deducting Rs. 1,000 for personal expenses, financial contribution so far          B
as the claimants are concerned is fixed at Rs. 2,000 per month. Worked
out on the basis of multiplier of 18, the compensation is fixed at Rs.
4,32,000. The amount of Rs. 2,000 awarded by the Tribunal for funeral
expenses is not interfered with and thus the total compensation comes to
Rs. 4,34,000. The rate of interest i.e. 9% per annum as fixed by the              C
Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court is appropriate, and does not
need any alterations.· [250-C, DJ

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5523 of2003.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 3.7.2001 of the Punjab and Haryana         D
High Court in F.A.0.No. 1850 of 2001.

      Praveen Kumar Rai and Ms. Kavita Wadia for the Appellants.

      Mahabir Singh, Ajay Pal and Rakesh Dahiya for the Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                  E

      ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

     Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and propriety of the judgment
rendered by Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Haryana and General       F
Manager, Road Transport, Fatehabad, the present appellants.

      In a nutshell, the background facts relevant for the purpose of dealing
with this appeal are as follows:

      One Jagga Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') lost his life   d
in a vehicle accident on 3.2.1999. His widow (respondent no. I) and minor
son Sewak Singh (respondent No. 2) filed claim petition under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for grant of compensation
to the tune of Rs. I 0 lakhs. In the claim petition the mother of the deceased
was impleaded as proforma respondent. The claimants asserted in the claim         H
    248                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   petition that the vehicle involved in the accident was owned by the Haryana
    Roadways and one Om Parkash was driving the vehicle bearing no. HR~39-
    04 I 8. It was pleaded that the deceased was 25 years old, was an agriculturist
    and was earning about Rs. I 0,000 per month by cultivating his agricultural
    land and from his avocation of purchasing and selling catties, and by selling
                                                                                       ....
    milk.
B
          The claim was resisted by the appellant-Haryana Roadways by taking
    the stand that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of
    the vehicle and in any event there was contributory negligence on the part of
    the deceased. The claim was also resisted on the ground that amount claimed
C   was highly exaggerated, without any rational basis and there was no material
    to show as to what was the deceased's income and the deprivation of financial
    contribution by the deceased to his family. Another claim petition was filed
    by one Ajaib Singh who stated to have been injured in the accident in question.
    We are not presently concerned with his case. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
    Fatehabad (in short 'Tribunal') by order dated 27.3.2001 held that the claimants
D   were entitled to compensation of Rs. 6.5 lakhs for loss of pecuniary benefits.
    It was further stipulated that the claimants would be entitled to the interest
    @ 9% on the amount of compensation from the date of application till
    realization. For determining the compensation the Tribunal held that the
    monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably assessed at Rs. 4500 per
E   month. After deducting Rs. 1500 for personal expenses, the Tribunal took Rs.
    3000 per month to be the contribution and multiplier of 18 was applied as per
    second schedule to the Act. The appeal before the High Court filed by the
    present appellants was dismissed on the ground that there was no infirmity
    in the award.

p         Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that with practically no
    evidence the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded to award Rs.6.5 lakhs.
    There was not even an iota of evidence to substantiate the claim of agricultural
    income from about 4 acres of land and. there was no evidence that the deceased
    was having any income from sale of milk or cattle. The High Court having
    accepted that there was no material to show that the deceased had any income
G   from sale of cattle or milk came to an abrupt and presumptuous conclusion
    that monthly income was Rs. 4500. There was no material to show as to what
    was the type of land, annual yield, if any, and therefore, the award is not
    sustainable in law, and the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal.

          Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the High
H
                   STATEv. JASBIRKAUR[PASAYAT,J.]                        249
Court has gone by the probabilities and the realities of life. Even if it is     A
accepte-. that there was no material to show the income from the agricultural'
or dairy, a rational view can be taken about the possible income from the
agricultural land, which the Tribunal did and the High Court give its seal of
approval.

       It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as B
provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount
of compensation which is to be in the real sense 'damages' which in tum
appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that
compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden
scales. But at the same time it has be to be borne in mind that the compensation C
 is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly
indicate the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a
source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and
Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount
of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation
is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for D
measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be
arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the
particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features,
if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be
considered in the background of ''just" compensation which is the pivotal
consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be .E
''just" a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to
be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of
whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression 'just' denotes
equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it
cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport F
Corporation, AIR ( 1998) SC 3191 ..

      It is clear on a bare reading of the Tribunal's decision as affirmed by
the High Court that no material was placed before the former to prove as to
what was the income. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the
appellants, there was not even any material adduced to show type of land         G
which the deceased possessed. The matter can be approached from a different
angle. The land possessed by the deceased ·still remains with the claimants as
his legal heirs. There is however a possibility that the claimants may be
required to engage persons to look after agriculture. Therefore, the normal
rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where   H
    250                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A agricultural income is the source. Attendant circumstances have to be
    considered. Furthermore, there was no material before the Tribunal to arrive
    at the figure of Rs.4500 per month. No reason has been indicated to arrive
    at this figure. In the light of what has been discussed above about 'just
    compensation' the income cannot be estimated without any material to justify
    the estimation. In the normal course, we would have remitted the matter back
B   to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. But considering the fact that one
    young person lost his life, and the matter was pending before the Tribunal
    and the High Court for some years, we feel it appropriate to take   all relevant
    factors into consideration, and decide the matter. Gauzing the relevant aspects,
    noted above, the monthly income is fixed at Rs.3000 per month, and after
C   deducting Rs. l ,000 for personal expenses, financial contribution so far as the
    claimants are concerned is fixed at Rs. 2,000 per month. Worked out on the
    basis of multiplier of 18, the compensation is fixed at Rs.4,32,000. The
    amount of Rs.2,000 awarded by the Tribunal for funeral expenses is not
    interfered with and thus the total compensation comes to Rs.4,34,000. The
    rate of interest i.e. 9% per annum as fixed by the Tribunal and affirmed by
D   the High Court is appropriate, and does not need any alteration. After adjusting
    the sum which was deposited pursuant to the order of this Court dated
    14.12.2001, the balance amount along with interest shall be deposited within
    three months from today before the Tribunal. On the deposit being made
    along with the amount already deposited, a sum of Rs.3 lakhs shall be kept
E   in the fixed deposit in the name of the claimants and a sum ofRs.50,000 shall
    be kept in fixed deposit in the name of Smt. Baldev Kaur, mother of the
    deceased. They shall be entitled to draw interest on the deposit, which shall
    be re-deposited for further terms of five years. In case of urgent need, it shall
    be open to the claimants to move Tribunal for release of any part of the
    amount in deposit. The Tribunal shall consider the request for withdrawal .
F   and shall direct withdrawal in case of an urgent need and not otherwise of
    such sum as would meet the need. It shall be specifically indicated to the
    Bank where the deposits are to be made that no advance or withdrawal of any
    kind shall be permitted without the order of the Tribunal. It shall be open to
    the claimants to approach the Tribunal for variance of the order relating to
G   deposit in fixed deposit, if any other scheme would fetch better returns and
    also would provide regular and permanent income.

          The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated. Costs made easy.

    K.K.T.                                                        Appeal allowed.