THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC versus MAHADEVA SHETTY AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 14 · Decided: 31-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC 
v. 
MAHADEV A SHETTY AND ANR. 
JULY 31, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 166-Motor Accident-Serious injury 
causing 100% disability--Compensation-Claim-Rs.2.20 lakhs awarded by 
c Tribunal-Enhanced by High Court to Rs.6.25 lakhs-On appeal, held: Under 
some heads compensation not justly determined by High Court-Compensation 
of Rs.4. 5 lakhs with interest of 9% would be adequate. 
Motor Accident-Compensation-Determination of-Held: Compensation 
must be 'just'-Expression just' denotes equitabi/ity,fairness, reasonableness 
D and non arbitrariness-Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise 
mathematical calculations-It would depend on particular facts of each case-
Determination has to be rational, to be done with judicious approach and not 
the outcome of whims and wild guesses. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 142-Precedent-Binding nature of 
E -Applicability-Held: Only the principle on which the case was decided is 
binding as authority-Statements not part of ratio decendi are not authoritative 
and they are only obiter dicta. 
Words and Phrases: 
F 
'Compensation'; 'damages '-Meaning of in the context of Motor Vehicles 
Act, 1988. 
'Act of God'-Meaning of 
Respondent-claimant, a mason by profession, suffered serious injury 
G in his spinal cord in an accident by a bus of the appellant-Corporation 
while he was travelling in the bus as a passenger. He filed application for 
compensation and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2.20 lakhs 
taking his annual income to be Rs.12,000 per annum. Respondent 
approached High Court for enhancement of compensation and the same 
H was enhanced to Rs.6.25 lakhs with interest at the rate of 9%. High Court 
14 
.. 
.l 
\. ,.. 
~ t 
\.
,. 
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC 1•. MAHA DEVA SHETTY 
15 
awarded Rs.I lakh for injuries, mental agony, pains and sufferings, A 
Rs.2,55,000 as loss of future income taking the annual income as Rs.15,000, 
Rs.1.5 lakh for loss of marital life, Rs.1 lakh for future expenses for 
medicine and wheelchair. 
In appeal to thrs Court, appellant-Corporation contended that 
claimant was not entitled to any compensation as ~he accident was not due B 
to rash and negligent driving and the same was due to act of God; that 
the High Court enhanced the compensation amount without any rational 
basis, and that the rate of interest was on the higher side. 
Allowing the app~I, the Court 
c 
HELD: I. The claimant is entitled to Rs.4.5 lakhs as compensation 
along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application for 
compensation till payment. Regarding injuries, mental agony, pains and 
sufferings it is noted that the claimant was hospitalized for about seven 
weeks. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 fixed by the High Court is D 
unreasonable. So far as the loss of earning capacity is concerned, there is 
no rational for fixing annual income at Rs. 15,000. Annual income is fixed 
at Rs. 12,000. Applying the multiplier of 17 the loss of future income is 
fixed at Rs. 2,04,000 instead of Rs. 2,55,000. For the loss of marital life 
and the non-possibility of marriage, High Court fixed the compensation 
at Rs.1.5 lakhs without any basis being indicated. So far as future expenses E 
for medicines and wheelchair etc. are concerned, High Court has fixed it 
at Rs.l lakh. Though High Court has not indicated any basis for award 
of lump sum, it cannot be denied that the claimant is on the wheelchair 
and would need regular medical attention because of the continued 
complications. The cost of expenses during hospitalization was small, F 
because treatment was at Government Hospital. The situation would not 
be different for future treatments. Sum of Rs. 50,000 would be adequate. 
The other amounts awarded by the High Court do not call for any 
interference. [25-H; 24-E-H; 25-A-C) 
R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR [1995) SC 755, G 
distinguished. 
Nagesha v. M.S. Krishna and Anr., [1997) 8 SCC 349, referred to. 
2. The term 'compensation' etymologically suggests the image of 
balancing one thing against another; its primary signification is H 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A equivalence, and the secondary and more common meaning is something 
given or obtained as an equiv11Ient. Pecuniary damages are to be valued 
on the basis of 'full compensation'. 'Compensation' means anything given 
to make things recompense, remunera

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