STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. versus JASBIR KAUR AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 245 · Decided: 05-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

j 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
v. 
JASBIR KAUR AND ORS. 
AUGUST 5, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988--Section 166-Motor accident-Death of 
agriculturist-Compensation-Claim of Rs. 10 /akh-Award of Rs. 6.5 /akh 
A 
B 
with 9% interest by courts below-Plea that assessment of income of deceased 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 A TE v. JASBIR KAUR 
247 
There was no material before the Tribunal to arrive at the figu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.