1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 488/2010 Bhonri Devi & Others Versus Ram Khiladi & Others. 24.02.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain,J. Mr. Ritesh Jain, for the appellants. BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of deceased Gordhan Lal Sain who died in a motor accident which took place on 19.03.2007. 3. Learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Dausa vide its award dated 07.11.2009 in Claim Case No. 403/2007 awarded the following amount: (i) Rs. 1,92,000/- towards loss of income; (ii) Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses; (iii)Rs. 15,000/- for mental agony etc.; (iv) Rs. 1,100/- for claim petition expenses. Total Rs. 2,13,100/-. 2 The Tribunal has also awarded simple interest @ 7% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of claim application till date of realization. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that learned Tribunal committed an illegality in deducting one- third amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, whereas it should have been one- fourth, looking to the number of dependents of the deceased person. He has also argued that the learned Tribunal further committed an illegality in not awarding the amount of compensation on account of love and affection to Appellants No. 5 and 6, daughter-in-law and grand son of the deceased. He, therefore, contended that the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and also examined the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 7. So far as the first submission regarding deduction of one-third amount on account of personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that there were 3 total six claimants in the present case, therefore, looking to the number of dependents-claimants, the amount of personal expenses of the deceased should have been deducted as one-fourth in place of one-third of his total income. In this connection, it is relevant to mention that out of total six claimants, only dependent claimant in the present case is Smt. Bhonri Devi, wife of the deceased. The Appellants No. 2 to 4 are sons and daughter of the deceased, who are admittedly major and were not dependent on him. This fact is also admitted by learned counsel for the appellants, during the course of arguments. In these circumstances, I find that there was one dependent on the deceased in the present case and looking to this fact, I find that learned Tribunal was fully justified in deducting one-third amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard. 8. So far as another submission with regard to the compensation on account of love and affection in favour of Appellants No. 5 and 6, daughter-in-law and grand son of the 4 deceased, is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the learned Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 15,000/- in favour of all the claimants towards mental agony etc. There is no separate head of compensation in this regard in Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per Second Schedule, even for loss of consortium a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is payable whereas in the present case, a total sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded. 9. Apart from above, it is also relevant to mention that the age of deceased was 60 years as per Post Mortem Report, Exhibit-4. This document was produced by the claimants and was binding on them. As per Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier of 5 is applicable in respect of age of deceased above 60 years but not exceeding 65 years whereas in the present case, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 8 which is applicable for the victim above 55 years but not exceeding 60 years. In these circumstances, I find that amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just and reasonable and there is no force in the second submission of 5 the learned counsel for the appellants. 10. 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 6 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 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).” 11. The Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which should appear to be just and reasonable. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I 7 find that total amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable and no interference in the same is called for. 12. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Manoj Item No.24.