// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1845/2006 Devi Lal Son of Shri Lalu Ji Versus Baljeet Singh S/o Jugati Ram Jat and Others Date of Order ::: 23.10.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Sunil Jain, Advocate, for Shri L.P. Singhal, Counsel for appellant #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. For enhancement of amount of awarded compensation, injured-claimant-appellant Devi Lal has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned Award dated 8th February, 2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar, District Ajmer, whereby the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.32,175/- in his favour under the following heads:- S. No. Headings Amount 1. Damages to Cycle Rs.1375/- 2. Expenses incurred in medical treatment Rs.3800/- 3. For three grievous injuries Rs.15000/- 4. For two simple injuries Rs.2000/- // 2 // S. No. Headings Amount 5. Mental agony, nutritious diet and transportation Rs.3000/- 6. Loss of income for two months Rs.7000/- The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not awarding just and proper compensation under the heads of mental agony and loss of income. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of reasons assigned by the Tribunal. The claimant stated that he was 50 years old and working as Helper in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and earning Rs.4000/- per month. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.17000/- for five injuries sustained by him, as mentioned above. Looking to the nature of the injuries, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3000/- towards mental agony. So far as loss of income is concerned, the appellant did not produce on the record the certificate of his income. Admittedly, the appellant did not produce permanent-disablement- certificate on the record showing the permanent disability suffered by him. The Tribunal assessed the part loss of income and awarded Rs.7000/- for loss of income for two months. // 3 // The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty – (2003) 7 SCC 197, held that 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 Hon'ble Apex Court further held that every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. The expression “just” denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non- arbitrariness. Para 15 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “15. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which to it appears to be 'just'. 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 the 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 // 4 // 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 on 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. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC (AIR 1998 SC 3191).” After considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant as well as his working and income, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. I do not find any ground or reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//