NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus KUSUMA AND ANR.

Citation: [2011] 10 S.C.R. 546 · Decided: 23-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 10 S.C.R. 546 
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 
v. 
KUSUMA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7212 of 2011) 
AUGUST 23, 2011 
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
ss. 166 and 168 -
Assessment of quantum of compensation - Meaning of the 
C word "jusf' as appearing in s. 168 - Loss of foetus on account 
of injury sustained by the claimant-mother in an accident -
Claim petition - Tribunal held that loss of foetus was akin to 
death of a child of tender age and awarded compensation of 
Rs. 50, 0001- towards loss of unborn child and a further sum of 
D Rs.10,0001- towards pain and sufferings to the claimant- High 
Court enhanced compensation to a consolidated amount of 
Rs. 1, 80, 0001- - On appeal, held: s. 168 casts an obligation 
on the Claims Tribunal to determine the amount of 
compensation "which appears to it to be jusf' - Word "jusf' 
E connotes something which is equitable, fair and reasonable, 
conforming to rectitude and justice and not arbitrary -
Determination of "just" amount of compensation is beset with 
difficulties, more so when the deceased happens to be an 
infant/child - Though assessment of compensation in a case 
F where the deceased is an infant involves a good deal of 
guesswork but it cannot be a wild guesswork - Some material 
has to be adduced by the claimants to prove that they 
entertained a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage 
from the deceased - In the instant case, neither the Tribunal 
nor the High Court applied any principle for determination of 
G the amount of compens<Jtion on account of the death of a still 
born child - Besides, in the judgment of the High Court, there 
was no discussion on the question of non-pecuniary 
compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant-mother 
H 
546 
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. 
547 
KUSUMA AND ANR. 
on account of pain and suffering as a result of death of the 
A 
child - In the normal course, the matter would have been 
remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration -
However, on facts, it would be too harsh to direct the claimants 
to undergo the entire gamut of a fresh exercise under s. 168 
-
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, 
B 
judgment of High Court not interfered with. 
The car in which respondent No.1 was travelling 
collided with a Bus owned by respondent No.2. 
Respondent no.1, who was 30 weeks pregnant, suffered 
C 
a fatal blow on the stomach as a result of which, The 
following day she delivered a still born baby. 
Respondent no.1 filed claim petition under Section 166 
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for Short 'the Act') before 
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal held that 
loss of foetus on account of injury sustained by the D 
claimant in the accident was akin to the death of a child 
of tender age and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-
towards the loss of unborn child and a further sum of 
Rs.10,0001- towards pain and sufferings to the claimant, 
along with an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of E 
institution of the claim petition till the date of deposit/ 
payment. The appellant-Insurance Company was 
directed to pay the said compensation to the claimant-
respondent no.1, in order to indemnify the owner of the 
car. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation 
F 
awarded by the Tribunal, respondent no.1 filed an appeal 
before the High Court, seeking enhancement of the 
aforesaid compensation. The High Court enhanced the 
compensation to a consolidated amount of Rs.1,80,000/-
with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the G 
petition till the date of payment. 
In the instant appeal filed by the insurance company, 
the question which arose for consideration was whether 
the quantum of compensation determined by the High 
Court warranted interference by this Court. 
H 
548 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. On receipt of an application for 
compensation made under Section 166 of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168 of the Act casts an 
8 obligation on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to 
determine the amount of compensation "which appears 
to it to be just". The expression "which appears to it to 
be just" gives a wide discretion to the Tribunal to 
determine the compensation which in the opinion of the 
Tribunal is "just". [Para 1 O] [553-D-E] 
c 
1.2. The word "just" connotes something which is 
equitable, fair and reasonable, conforming to rectitude 
and justice and not

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.