// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.5074/2008 Smt. Gulli Devi Wife of late Shri Kalyan Sahai & Others Versus Bind Kumar Son of Shri Chaman Lal and Others Date of Order ::: 08.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Vikram Singh, Advocate, for Shri Sandeep Mathur, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The legal heirs of deceased Kalyan Sahai, who died in a motor-accident occurred on 9th November, 2005, have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 13th July, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in MAC No.777/2005, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,13,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 30th November, 2005, in their favour. The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the // 2 // income of the deceased properly. According to him the daily income of the deceased was Rs.300/- whereas the Tribunal assessed his daily income at the rate of Rs.100/- only. He contended that as per the statement of AW-1 Gulli Devi and AW-2 Bhagwan Sahai, the daily income of the deceased was Rs.3,00/- per day, which should have been assessed. He, therefore, contended that the amount of compensation may be enhanced accordingly. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned Award, particularly the finding of the Tribunal in respect of quantum of compensation. So far as the age of the deceased i.e. 45 years and multiplier of 15 adopted in the present case are concerned, the same have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. The only submission is about assessment of the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has considered the statements of AW-1 Gulli Devi and AW-2 Bhagwan Sahai, who, in their cross-examination, admitted that they have not placed on the record any documentary evidence in support of their statements with regard to daily income of the deceased. It was stated that he was labour contractor but the appellants neither produced any register nor any other document on // 3 // the record to corroborate their testimony. However, in absence of any documentary evidence the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that looking to the age of the deceased he was earning at-least Rs.3,000/- per month and, after deducing 1/3rd out of it for personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 15 and awarded a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- under the head of loss of income. The compensation has also been awarded under other heads as per the details mentioned in the impugned Award. Thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,13,000/- in the present case. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in the light of the finding of the learned Tribunal, I find that the Tribunal was fully justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- in absence of any documentary evidence in support of the statements of AW-1 Gulli Devi and AW-2 Bhagwan Sahai, and I do not find any illegality in the same. 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 // 4 // 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 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 // 5 // 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).” In view of the above discussions, I am satisfied that looking to the age and job of the deceased, the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//