- (1.) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. preferred this appeal under Section 173 M.V. Act, 1988 challenging the Order dated 17th March, 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge, Alipore in M.A.C. Case No. 283 of 2000 on the grounds inter-alia, that the award assessed by the learned Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 4,02,259/- less already paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the case under no fault liability is illegal and bad in law inasmuch as the learned Tribunal while assessing the amount of compensation failed to consider the fact that the claimant/ respondent was more than 59 years old on the date of accident and that he was due to retire from his service only after 6/7 months from the date of accident and as such, multiplier of it should not have been applied in the instant case in view of a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maala Prakasha Rao Vs. Maala Janhabi and others, 2004 3 SCC 343 .
(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the injured claimant did not suffer any loss of income for the injury he sustained since as P.W.-1 in the cross-examination he stated in clear crystal term that his income has been increased after the accident and that he did not suffer any loss of income. Therefore, the claimant/ respondent did not suffer any pecuniary loss as admitted by himself. To support his argument, the learned Counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to a case of Divisional Controller K S R T C Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, 2003 3 TAC 284 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "The damages for vehicular accidents are in the nature of compensation in money for loss of any kind caused to any person. The main principles of law on compensation for injuries were worked out in the 19th century, where railway accidents were becoming common and all actions were tried by the jury. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. Bodily injury is nothing but a deprivation which entitles the claimant to damages. The quantum of damages fixed should be in accordance with the injury. An injury may bring about many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential losses. A person becomes entitled to damages for mental and physical loss, his or her life may have been shortened or that he or she cannot enjoy life, which has been curtailed because of physical handicap. The normal expectation of life is impaired. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" 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. What would 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. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just", a wide discretion is vested in 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. "
(3.) Further it is contended on behalf of the appellant that Dr. P. K. Mondal who assessed the permanent partial disablement to the extent of 28% did not treat the injured claimant/respondent for the injury he sustained. He only issued the certificate. He used to issue certificate and adduce evidence on behalf of the injured claimants in different claim cases before the Tribunal. Therefore, his certificate as regards the percentage of permanent partial disablement should not have been accepted by the learned Tribunal.;