JUDGMENT
R.B. Misra, J.
1. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, with Mr. A. Pal, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the respondent owner. Heard also Mr. P. Gautam, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company.
2. The present appeal has been preferred Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and award dated 24.6.1999 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala (the learned Tribunal for short) in Case No. T.S., (MAC) 261 of 1996 preferred Under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, before the learned Tribunal in reference to the death of Dinesh Das, husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of other claimants in a motor accident which occurred on 21.8.1992 at about 1610 hours at Nailaha Bail on the Assam Agartala road under Ambassa police station.
3. The said accident occurred on 21.8.1992 when the victim Dinesh Das was proceeding along with Assam Agartala Road at Nailahabari with containers of fish fingerlings on his shoulder by a ‘BHAR’ for selling them to the villagers like a Hawker, he was hit by a Truck bearing No TRL-2875 coming from Ambassa towards Agartala being driven very rashly and negligently with high speed knocking the victim from extreme left side of the road and the said vehicle also outlined from the road. As a result of this accident the victim Dinesh Das was seriously injured and was brought to Kulai Hospital and there from he was referred to G.B. Hospital Agartala where he succumbed to his injuries on 3.8.1992 at about 09.05 hours. In reference to the said accident, the Ambassa P.S. Case No. 7(8)92 Under Section 279/338/427/304 (A) of I.P.C. was registered.
4.Compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,92,000/- was made with 12% interest per annum from the date of restoration of the case i.e. 30.3.1996 till date of payment with such other directions as indicated in the award.
5. In order to adjudicate the claim of the appellants the learned Tribunal taken into consideration the testimony of prosecution witnesses P.W. 1 Smti. Arati Das, the appellant No. 1 herein, who has made her averments in support of her claim by saying that at the time of accident her husband, aged about 40 years, old was earning Rs. 3000/-as a business man of Fish finger lings and on the date of incidents the value of Fish fingerlings Rs. 4000/-. She also claims that she had spent Rs. 5000/- for the treatment of her victim husband when he was admitted in injured condition in the G.B. Hospital.
6. Testimony of Shri. Indrajit Das, P.W. 2 was taken into consideration as eyewitness of the said accident who also has supported the claim by saying that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3000/-, however, no documentary evidence was produced by both P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in support of the claim of the income as well as the expenditure incurred on the treatment of the deceased. On the basis of the death certificate, certificate of postmortem emanation and other material documents, learned Tribunal has ascertained the income of the deceased as Rs. 1500/- at relevant time and has also indicated the age of victim as 40 years at the time of the said accident in question.
7. After applying the 2nd Schedule Rs. 2,52,000/- 3×2= Rs. 1,68,000/- was calculated as compensation to the claimants/appellants herein and adding Rs. 20,000/-towards the consortium and Rs. 1000/- as medical expenses and Rs. 2000/- as funeral charges. Thus, the amount of Rs. 1,92,000/-was indicated as the total compensation payable to the claimants with interest 12% per annum from the date of restoration of the petition i.e. 30.3.1996 till the date of payment within two months. It was also observed that if the said amount was not paid within two months, with interest @ 15% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of restoration of the case i.e. 30.3.1996 till the date of payment was payable.
8. It was also observed in the impugned award that Smti. Arati Das P.W. 1 claimant, will get 50% along with proportionate interest and the balance amount would be equally distributed among the claimants/appellants No. 2 & 3 along with proportionate interest and the said amount was to be kept in fixed deposit scheme of any Nationalized bank in the name of the claimants No. 2 & 3 and the matured amount was to be payable to them after attaining their majority and the amount was not be withdrawn without permission of learned Tribunal.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellants has, however, argued that in paragraph 23 of the claim petition it was mentioned that the victim Dinesh Das was a business man (seller of fish fingerlings). The deceased was an energetic and also a very well built young man. The deceased was showing good prospect in his profession. His future prospect was bright and it was expected that he would make more and more contribution to the family in future and for himself. He used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month. Considering that the deceased would have working capacity up to the age of 70 years, the deceased could have work minimum 30 years more calculated @ Rs. 3,000/- per month the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 36,000/- and thus for the next 30 years the deceased would have earned an amount of Rs. 10,80,000/-. The Claimant-petitioners claim this amount of Rs. 10,80,000/- on count of loss of income caused due to accidental death of the deceased Dinesh Das as compensation.
10. Mr. P. Gautam, learned Counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company relying on the decision of the (Divisional Controller KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Anr.) has submitted that compensation it to be “just” not a bonanza. While determining the compensation, Tribunal has to be rational based on a judicious approach. Suffering of the mind, shorting of life expectancy, loss of earning capacity, permanence of the disability, loss of amenities of life etc. are to be considered against the backdrop of age, marital status etc. and there cannot be any mathematical precision possible to work out the compensation. It was observed by the Supreme Court in Mahadeva Shetty as below:
The damages for vehicular accidents are in the nature of compensation in money for loss of any kind caused to any person. The main principles of law on compensation for injuries were worked out in the 19th century, where railway accidents were becoming common and all actions were tried by the jury. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. Bodily injury is nothing but a deprivation which en-titles the claimant to damages. The quantum of damages fixed should be in accordance with the injury. An injury may bring about many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential losses. A person becomes entitled to damages for mental and physical loss, his or her life may have been shortened or that he or she cannot enjoy life, which has been curtailed because of physical handicap. The normal expectation of life is impaired. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicated that 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 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 circum-stances, 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 just” a wide discretion is vested in 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.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court (Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General Geological Survey of India and Anr.), it has also been submitted by Mr. Gautam, that the rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time. To strengthen the stand of the Insurance Company on the payment of interest learned Counsel has placed reliance on paragraph 18 of Abati Bezbaruah, (supra). The relevant extract of Para 18 is quoted below:
No rate of interest is fixed Under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident claim cases having regard to the nature of provision Under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time. However long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income loss of enjoyment of life etc. into consideration.
11. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.N. Bhatlacharjee, appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle has also argued that in the facts and circumstances and taken into consideration the age of the deceased as 40 years, the leaned Tribunal has rightly ascertained the income of the victim deceased as Rs. 1500/- and taken into consideration and the materials record, a just compensation has been awarded to be paid on a reasonable interest and the same has not to be interfered with as the award is in consonance to the provisions of the schedule as well as the established law indicated by the Supreme Court.
12. However, Mr. P. Gautam, the learned Counsel for the respondents has contended that in the written objection the United Insurance, Company itself has submitted that the documents in respect of occupation of deceased and his monthly income were not submitted by the claimant through his claim petition and as such the claim was disputed. According to him a specific rebuttal of the claim of the income indicated by the claimant was not necessary and onus was to prove the income as claimed by claimant. The clamant could have been proved by documentary evidences as well as from the attending circumstances to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. In absence of proper proof, learned Tribunal has rightly accepted the income of the deceased as Rs. 1500/- and in absence of any specific pleadings and Arguments for future prospects no enhancement has to be made at this stage. 1 find considerable force in the submissions of Mr. P. Gautam.
13. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and alter perusing the records and documents, I find that the learned Tribunal has made just compensation which needs no interference. The MAC Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.