Shivani Pandey-
A Supreme Court Bench of Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Subhash Reddy announced the order in an appeal filed by the complainant, being aggrieved by the decision of the National Consumer Redressal Commission bringing down the compensation awarded to her from Rs.88,73,798/- to 50 lakhs.
In the instant case, the complainant, a 14-year-old child who in December 2006, went on an educational tour with other students to North India, along with teachers of the school, fell ill and was eventually diagnosed with Meningo Encephalitis.
The doctors had opined that if she was given timely medical aid, she could have been easily cured, which proves grave negligence on part of the teachers who accompanied the child.
The State Commission and the National Commission had held that gross negligence was committed by the respondent as teachers who accompanied the complainant and the other children, were negligent in performing their job. Anyhow, the National Commission, while asserting the State Commission’s decision held that compensation of Rs.50 lakhs would be enough.
While mentioning that an appellate authority has the jurisdiction to bring down the awarded compensation, Supreme Court has stated that “The power to exercise judicial discretion is indeed wide, but is inherently limited by the requirement of a judicious exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction.”
The Bench went on to say that, “Judicial discretion is not arbitrary to be exercised sans reason to the prejudice of another.”
The Bench noted that there is no discussion by the National Commission and no grounds have been spelt out, for the formation of its opinion to bring down the compensation. Further, it observed that without opining that the compensation awarded under any particular head was exuberant, it simply opined to reduce the compensation.
“In absence of any such material, discussion or reasoning, the reduction of the compensation patently becomes arbitrary and therefore, unsustainable“, stated the Bench.