1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5143/2008 {Chigni Devi & Another Versus Mustaak Khan & Others} Date of Order :: 17th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Vinay Mathur for the appellants BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The parents of deceased Rajesh, aged about 13 years, who died in motor accident took place on 13th October, 2005 have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of his death and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 12th June, 2007 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 3rd December, 2005 in their favour. 3. The only submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the amount of 2 compensation awarded in the present case is at lower side and same is liable to be enhanced. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants in the light of finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of issue no.2 relating to quantum of compensation. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the age of deceased as 13 years. The Tribunal has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manju Devi Versus Musafir Paswan {2005 (1) T.A.C. Page 609 (S.C.)}, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a total amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as compensation where there was a death of child, aged about 13 years. Even otherwise, as per Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is normally applied in cases under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act also, the multiplier of 15 is applicable in the present case. The deceased was a non-earning member, therefore, as per Second Schedule his annual income can be assessed as Rs. 15000/- and the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,25,000/-. Although 1/3rd amount is liable to be deducted as per Second Schedule for personal expenses of 3 deceased, but in the present case the Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards it and has awarded total amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- itself on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manju Devi's case (supra). 6. In view of above, I am satisfied that amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC Versus Mahadeva Shetty and Another {(2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 197} has held 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. 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 as under: “It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to 4 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 to 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 be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a wind fall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate 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 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 5 and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just.” 8. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK