1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.5021/2008 Laxman Saini v/s Javed Ali & Anr. Date of Judgment ::: 12th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Shyam Bihari on behalf of Shri Pankaj Gupta, for the appellant. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in motor accident took place on 6.6.2001 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 3.11.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, in Claim Case No.42/2002 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.45,000/- as compensation with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application i.e. 28.1.2002 in his favour. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant suffered 11.46% permanent disability but the learned Tribunal did not award any specific amount of compensation specifically under this head and has awarded total compensation under all heads 2 of Rs.45,000/- which is not proper and the same is liable to be enhanced. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to quantum of compensation. As per injury report Ex. 4, the appellant sustained 2 injuries. One injury was simple in nature and another injury was found to be grievous as per x-ray report Ex 5. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- for grievous injury and Rs.1,000/- for simple injury. As per Ex 10, discharge certificate, it is clear that the appellant remained in hospital for three days for one operation and for the same the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,500/- for loss of three days income and Rs.10,000/- for operation. The amount of medical bills of Rs.2,677/- was also awarded. As per Ex 2, permanent disability certificate, the appellant suffered 11.46% permanent disability, therefore, looking to the permanent disability and the aforesaid amount of compensation awarded under the different heads, the learned Tribunal passed an order that the appellant will be entitled to get a total amount of Rs.45,000/- in all heads. The above calculation shows that Rs.20,177/- has been awarded under different heads as mentioned above and remaining amount of Rs.24,823/- (Rs.45,000/- - 20,177/-) has been 3 awarded for 11.46% permanent disability, therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal is required to pass an award u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. After considering the nature and number of injuries and the percentage of permanent disability, I am of the view that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it, is called for. 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 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 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 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 discussion, I do 5 not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra kumar jain), J. Chauhan/