1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4295/2008 {Sharwan Kumar Versus Vikrant Gupta & Others} Date of Order :: 4th November, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. M.C. Jain for the appellant BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against impugned award dated 17th July, 2008, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 55,900/- in favour of the appellant as under: Rs. 12,000/- for two grievous injuries and physical pain and mental agony Rs.8250/- for loss of income for one and half month Rs. 34,000/- for 5.9% permanent disability Rs. 1615/- for medicines as per bills Ex. 14 to Ex. 22 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Tribunal committed an illegality 2 in not calculating the amount of compensation in respect of loss of income by applying the multiplier system and in case the same would have been applied, then the amount of compensation would have come to more than Rs. 60,000/- in place of Rs. 34,000/-, as awarded by the Tribunal. He, therefore, contended that impugned award of the Tribunal be modified to that extent. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and also the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of issue no. 4. There is no dispute that the injured claimant sustained two grievous injuries as per injury report Ex.9 and discharge ticket Ex.10. The injuries have been treated as grievous on the basis of discharge ticket Ex. 10 and without any X-ray report as the same has not been produced on record, however, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,000/- for physical pain and mental agony in respect of these two injuries. As per monthly income of the appellant i.e. Rs. 5500/- per month, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8250/- towards loss of income for one and half month. The Tribunal has further awarded lumpsum amount of Rs. 34,000/- towards 5.9% permanent disability as per Ex. P- 3 13. The medicine bills were for Rs. 1615/- and the same have been allowed. The Tribunal is required to pass an award, which should be just and reasonable. The Tribunals are at liberty to calculate the amount of compensation either on multiplier system or lumpsum amount which appears to be just and reasonable. 5. 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 make an award determining the amount of compensation which to it appears to be 'just'. It has 4 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. 5 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.” 6. In view of above, I find that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case looking to the nature of injury, appears to be just and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK