IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.2189/2008 Smt. Santosh & Ors. v/s Ramsingh & Ors Date of Judgment ::: 17th November,2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri J.P. Gupta, for the appellants. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of death of deceased Ladu Singh who died in motor accident which took place on 3.1.2005 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 12.9.2007 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Ajmer whereby the learned learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,71,400/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till the date of payment in their favour. The sole submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the income of the deceased properly. He contended that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased at least at 1 the rate of Rs.100/- per day and in these circumstances, the amount of compensation may be enhanced. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned award, particularly; the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of issue No.3. The learned Tribunal has considered the statement of AW 1 Smt. Santosh wife of the deceased who stated in her statement that the deceased was earning Rs.6000/- per month. NAW 2, Amar Singh who is employer of the deceased has not stated anything in his statement about the income of the deceased. Admittedly, no documentary evidence was placed on record in support of the income of the deceased and in absence of it, the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.2400/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd amount out of which assessed the dependency of Rs.1600/- per month. The deceased was 33 years of age, therefore, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 and and thus awarded a sum of Rs.3,26,400/- (1600x12x17) towards loss of income. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs.45,000/- under the different/other heads as mentioned in the impugned award. Thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,71,400/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim application till date of payment. 2 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 3 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 all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that in absence of any documentary evidence in support of income of the deceased and particularly, when NAW 2, Amar Singh, the employer of the deceased did not say a single word about the income of the deceased, I find that the learned Tribunal was justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2400/-. The total amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just and reasonable. 4 In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (N.K. Jain), J. Chauhan/ 5