# /Defendant v. Smt. Kamla Devi and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 590
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-07-21
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1911 of 2008
- **Bench:** Amitava Lala, Vedpal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/defendant-v-smt-kamla-devi-and-others-41282
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
accordingly dismissed. Notices, if any,
issued
to
the opposite parties are
discharged.

14. No order is passed as to costs.
Contempt Rejected.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE VEDPAL, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1911 of 2008

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

 ...Appellant/Defendant
Versus
Smt. Kamla Devi and others

...Claimants/Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Anupam Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:

Motor Vehicle Act 1988-Section-166-Just
and
proper
compensation-monthly
income of deceased-on oral evidence
assessed by Tribunal as Rs.6,000/-after
deduction 1/3-as per Rs.4,000 awarded
Rs.2,40,000/- challenged on the groundwhen there is no direct evidence about
monthly income-in the garb of just
compensation-can not be estimatedheld-totally
mis
conceived-even
oral
evidence-no denied or contradictionvalue of life can not be estimated in
terms
of
money-No
case
for
interference-appeal dismissed in limne.

Held: Para 4

Being so, we cannot interfere with the
judgement and order impugned before
us. Therefore, we are of the view that
the
appeal
will
be
treated
to
be
dismissed at the stage of admission.
Accordingly, it has been done, however,
without imposing any cost.
Case law discussed:
2003(3) TAC 569

{Delivered by Hon'ble Arnitava Lala, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by
the Insurance Company challenging the
judgement and order dated 2nd April 2008
passed by the concerned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Fatehpur awarding a
sum of Rs.2,57,000/- as compensation
along with interest @ 6% thereon.

2. The only one issue has been
raised before us by the Insurance
Company that there was no evidence with
regard to the income of the deceased for a
sum of Rs.6,000/- as accepted by the
Tribunal. It appears to us that the claim
petition was filed by the claimants under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. The Court had arrived at such
figure of compensation of Rs.6,000/- on
the basis of oral testimony and after the
deduction of Rs.2,000/-, on being 1/3rd
deduction of Rs.6,000/-, arrived at figure
of Rs.4,000/- and the compensation was
awarded for Rs.2,40,000/- along with the
funeral expenses etc .. It is specifically
recorded in the judgement itself that there
was no denial or rebuttal on the part of the
Insurance
Company.
The
Insurance
Company has relied upon a judgement
delivered by the Supreme Court reported
in 2003(3) TAC 569 (State of Haryana
Vs. Jasbir Kaur) and said that when
there is no material before the Tribunal to
arrive at monthly income for the purpose
of considering "just" compensation, it
cannot be estimated.

3. We are of the view that the
argument, as advanced by the learned
2 All] The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt. Kamla Devi and others
591
counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, suffers from misconception.
The Supreme Court has categorically held
that what be "just" compensation is a
vexed question. There 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 consideration. The Supreme
Court held that the determination should
be rational, to be done by a judicious
approach and not outcome of whims, wild
guesses and arbitrariness. The gentleman,
who expired in the case before the
Supreme Court, had the agricultural
income as well as business with regard to
milk etc. But the difference between such
case and this case is that there was no
material and the present case there was
some material even being oral evidence
but can not be overlooked. Therefore,
when there is some material available
before the Court, the Court would
construe and come to an appropriate
finding particularly in a situation when
there is no denial or rebuttal. This
distinguishing feature should not be
escaped from the notice of the Court in
arriving at a conclusion.

4. Being so, we cannot interfere with
the judgement and order impugned before
us. Therefore, we are of the view that the
appeal will be treated to be dismissed at
the stage of admission. Accordingly, it
has
been
done,
however,
without
imposing any cost.

5. However, it is open for the
insurance
company
to
make
any
application
for
recovery
of
the
compensation in the tribunal in the self
same proceeding when upon giving notice
and adequate opportunity of hearing
Court will consider the issue either way.
But under no circumstances, the amount
which has been directed to be paid to the
claimants would be stalled.

6. Incidentally, the appellantinsurance company prayed that the
statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made
before this Court for preferring this appeal
be remitted back to the concerned Motor
Accidents
Claims
Tribunal
as
expeditiously as possible in order to
adjust the same with the amount of
compensation to be paid to the claimants,
however, such prayer is allowed. Appeal
Dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. CHAUDHARY, J.
THE HON'BLE K.N. OJHA, J.

Government Appeal No.2031 of 1981
&
Criminal Revision No.978 of 1981

The State of U.P.

...Appellant
Versus
Narain & others ...Accused Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Amar Jeet Singh
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.C. Jhingan
Sri C.B. Dubey
Sri A.K.S. Bais