Case Type: Civil Appeal
Case No: 5453/2003
Appellants: The Divisional Controller, KSRTC
Respondents: Mahadeva Shetty and Anr.
Decided On: 31-07-2003
Statues Referred: Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
Case Referred:
- Nagesha v. M.S. Krishna and Anr.
- Parry v. Cleaver
- R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd
Bench: Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Facts:
Mahadeva Shetty the claimant was inflicted with sensitive injuries on 4-6-1995 on account of vehicular accident where a bus having Registration No. KA-01/F 5097. The bus belonged to the Karnataka State Road Corporation (KSRC).
The claimant asserted that the accident occurred due to rash driving by the driver where the bus bashed into a ravine resulting in serious injuries to the spinal cord of the claimant making him a paraplegic.
The claimant filed an application of compensation of ₹ 9.83 lakhs before Civil Judge at Nanjangud. Monthly income of the claimant stood at ₹ 3,000/- P.M at the time of accident.
The KRSTC contented that the accident happened due to Act of God and that the driver had adopted due care and safety while driving.
The Tribunal awarded a compensation of ₹ 2.20 lakhs with interest @ 6% p.a (if not realised).
Whereafter the claimant appealed to the Karnataka High Court, and the High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to ₹6.25 lakhs.
The claimant was still not satisfied by the enhanced amount and therefore appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Determination of “just compensation” liable to be paid.
Obiter Dicta:
Act of God signifies the action of natural forces out of human control, such as lightening, storm, severe gale, snowstorms, hurricanes, cyclones, tidal waves and the like. But unexpected wind and storm which is susceptible to human anticipation is excused. Act of God can be used as a defence only when the event is beyond the expectation of human foresight.
“A person becomes entitled to damages for the 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 be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a wind fall for the victim”.
Ratio Decedendi:
The basic principle of law requires that the wrong should not go unpunished. All the offender should be liable for damages.
True indeed that money cannot undo the physical harm occurred to some person. It is not a perfect compensation in situation where a physic frame has been battered and shattered. The genuine object of compensation lies in the fact that it is an attempt to place the claimant to the same position financially as he was before accident.
In cases of death by accident the endeavour is to mitigate hardship of the dependants due to sudden demise of the deceased.
The tribunal constituted under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is competent to award compensation U/S 168 of the Act with the condition that it should be just.
The mind and body of the person suffers who has meet with the accident. A feeling is developed that such person is no more normal and unable to enjoy the amenities of life.
Judgment:
The Apex Court’s bench comprising of Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat, JJ held the following:
The Court held that the multiplier of 17 as held by the High Court was correct but the income enhanced to ₹15,000 from ₹12,000 was irrational.
Future expense was fixed at ₹50,000 since the condition was evident.
Cost of hospitalization expense was and consequential expense was fixed at ₹50,000/-
The total compensation was fixed at ₹4,49,000/- which rounded to ₹4.50 Lakhs with interest @ 9% p.a.
₹ 3.5 lakh out of the award granted shall be fixed deposited for five years in a nationalised bank.
The Court allowed the claimant to release the fixed deposit upon the approval of the tribunal, only in urgent situation. The Court also directed the Bank to not to make any transaction without the express order of the tribunal.
Hence the Court allowed the appeal with cost made easy.
Conclusion:
Cases of Compensation are sensitive as the Court deals not with the imponderable of the victims but also be careful and extra-cautious in awarding the just amount of compensation. The amount need not always be high or too low always. It always depends upon the facts and circumstances of the cases. Sometimes reference may also be made to precedents of Supreme Court. But the principle is wide enough to allow the Court to deviate from its precedent as and when required. Compensation are only means to do right for the wrong done. Courts are diligent enough to check misuse of it.
Kaushal Agarwal.
