Just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act allows broad tribunal discretion, with appellate interference limited to plainly excessive awards.

Rash and negligent driving was established on eyewitness evidence and surrounding circumstances showing a bus driven fast and without due caution in a school zone, while the driver and conductor's account was found unreliable against the contemporaneous record and inspection report. The compensation issue under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act was addressed by treating "just" compensation as a wide discretion, with the motor accident claims scheme viewed as self-contained and the Fatal Accidents Act used only as a broad guide. The award was not found arbitrary, capricious, or plainly excessive, so the compensation figure was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the death of the minor was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. (ii) Whether the compensation awarded under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act was excessive and liable to be reduced.

Issue (i): Whether the death of the minor was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.

Analysis: The evidence of the eyewitness and the surrounding circumstances established that the bus was driven fast and without due caution in a school zone when children were coming out of school. The versions put forward by the driver and conductor were found unreliable and inconsistent with the contemporaneous record and the inspection report. The Tribunal's finding that the deceased was run over by the bus due to rash and negligent driving was supported by the evidence.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the respondent and against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the compensation awarded under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act was excessive and liable to be reduced.

Analysis: The expression "just" in Section 110-B was held to confer a wide and comprehensive discretion on the Tribunal. The provisions governing motor accident claims were treated as a self-contained and exhaustive scheme, and the principles under the Fatal Accidents Act were regarded only as broad guides and not binding limits. On the facts, the deceased was a bright only son, the family was affectionate and affluent, and the Tribunal had assessed compensation on a reasonable estimate of future contribution and loss. The appellate court would interfere only where the award was arbitrary, capricious, or clearly out of proportion.

Conclusion: The award was held not to be excessive, and the issue was decided in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both liability and quantum, and the award of compensation was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal must award compensation that appears to it to be just, and the appellate court will not interfere with the quantified award unless it is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or plainly excessive.

---