A. Pasayat, J.
1. This appeal is by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (described hereinafter as the 'insurer') challenging the award passed by the Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri (in short the 'Tribunal').
2. The background in which this appeal has come before this court may be stated as follows:
Respondent No. 1 lodged a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation for injuries sustained by him on account of accident which took place on 25.5.1985, by a vehicle bearing registration No. ORP 3383 of which respondent No. 2 is the owner. According to the claimant, while he was proceeding on a cycle from Bhubaneswar to Utara in connection with his business activities, suddenly the offending vehicle came at a high speed from behind and dashed against him, as a result of which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was removed to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar for treatment, whereafter he was treated at his native place at Kamakshyanagar and subsequently he was treated at S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack. His claim was that he was earning about Rs. 50/- per day and because of injuries he has sustained loss of income and in addition he had to spend huge amount for his treatment.
3. The owner of the vehicle did not file any objection, but took part in the hearing before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the insurer, respondent No. 2, had filed written statement. The Tribunal on assessment of evidence came to hold that the accident did take place in the manner claimed by the claimant. It, however, found that sufficient material was not placed before it to assess the just compensation payable. It further held that there were undisputedly some injuries and therefore, quantified the amount at Rs. 45,000/- as compensation. It also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for the cycle which was damaged on account of the accident. The insurer was held liable to indemnify the awarded amount in view of the fact that the vehicle in question was covered by the insurance.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant challenges the judgment on the ground that the same is the outcome of non-application of mind, perverse, there being no material before the Tribunal to assess the nature of injury, if any, sustained and therefore the high amount awarded is not justified. He has referred to certain conclusions of the Tribunal relating to absence of evidence relating to the injuries and unsatisfactory nature of evidence adduced by the claimant in support of the claim. The learned counsel for the claimant, however, submits that the owner of the vehicle having participated in the proceeding, it is not open to the insurer to assail the judgment.
5. In normal cases where a court finds that there is effective participation by the owner of a vehicle, it may not be permissible for the insurer to assail the quantum as awarded. But what is effective participation is dependent on several factors. If there is a mere show of participation, the court can consider it to be non-effective participation. A court cannot remain a mute spectator and allow perpetration of a fraud on justice, when parties collude to draw red herrings across the course of justice. Where the court feels that participation of the owner was a mere shadow-boxing it can interfere. Where the conclusions of the Tribunal are monstrous or illusory to shock the conscience of the court, its power for interference remains undeterred. Let me illustrate a fallacious situation, where non-interference would not only be improper but also inequitable. In a given case, a person suffers a simple scratch in an accident, the owner of the offending vehicle puts up a show of participation and Tribunal without any material and/or indication of any basis or reason awards a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, will it be logical to hold that the insurer cannot question the quantum? The answer is a firm no. In the instant case, I find that the award as made by the Tribunal suffers from serious infirmities. It has not indicated any basis for awarding a sum of Rs. 45,000/- as compensation. Though there is bound to be some amount of guesswork while making an award or assessing the compensation, prima facie there must be some basis to justify the conclusion. It is not the whim of the Tribunal which can determine the quantum to be awarded. As observed by Lord Morris in H. West and Son Ltd. v. Shephard 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England), money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. A person is compensated for an injury caused to him, as well as for several other connected aspects. In the instant case, the Tribunal having itself observed that there was no material in support of the claim of injury of the claimant to justify the claim, should not have come to the abrupt conclusion that because the claimant suffered injuries he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 45,000/-. There cannot be possibly any doubt that if a person has suffered injury he is to be compensated. The question is what is the amount to be awarded as compensation. Because of these deficiencies, normally remand of the matter to the Tribunal would have been proper. But considering the fact that the accident took place more than five years back, I feel that no useful purpose shall be served by remanding the matter back to the Tribunal. I have considered the evidence on record and find that the claimant was hospitalised for about one month. He has categorically stated this aspect in his deposition in court. There was no serious challenge to this assertion made by the claimant. It also appears that certain X-ray plates indicating injuries have been filed before the Tribunal and have been marked as exhibits. Certain prescriptions and cash memos indicating purchase of medicines have also been filed. Considering the period of hospitalisation, estimated loss of income due to hospitalisation, pain and suffering on account of the accident, I estimate compensation at Rs. 25,000/-. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal for damage of the cycle is sustained, as well as costs awarded.
6. In the ultimate analysis, the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 26,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of claim. Pursuant to the direction given on 1.2.1991 the insurer has deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in this court. This amount shall be paid to the claimant by a bank draft, the charges for which shall be borne by the claimant. If the balance amount along with interest is not paid by the insurer within three months from today, interest rate applicable will be at the rate of 12 per cent.
The miscellaneous appeal is disposed of accordingly.