1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1711/2008 {Lalit Kishore Versus Chandrashekhar & Another} Date of Order :: 17th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Sunit Awasthi for the appellant BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 107 days in filing the appeal as well on merits of the appeal also. 2. So far as delay of 107 days in filing the appeal is concerned, the appellant has explained the same in para 2 of the application, which reads as under: “2. That the appellant could not file the appeal against the impugned award dt. 17-7-2007 within the stipulated period of 90 days because the appellant's father is presently an unemployed poor person because his father was earlier in government service who had been terminated long back from the government service. The appellant was not having sufficient money to file the appeal before this Hon'ble Court and also he was undergoing treatment for the injuries he sustained as the result of the accident and still he is taking treatment. The appellant has now 2 collected some money and immediately he managed to file the present appeal against the impugned award dated 17-7- 2007. The appellant is a student and he is not having his personal source of income and therefore he has to collect money from other sources for filing the present appeal after a delay of some days.” 3. The appellant is required to explain the each day's delay but so far as present case is concerned, the above explanation shows that he has not explained the delay of 107 days in filing the appeal properly and I am not satisfied that any sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and as such the application under Section 5 of th Limitation Act is liable to be dismissed. 4. So far as merits of the case are concerned, the injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in motor accident took place on 13th November, 2005 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 17th July, 2007 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Ajmer, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 61,504/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application in his favour as under:- 3 Sr. No. Amount Under the head 1 Rs. 2000/- For two simple injuries 2 Rs. 5,000/- For one grievous injury 3 Rs. 6500/- For 13 days period, during which the appellant remained admitted in the hospital 4 Rs. 5,000/- For operation 5 Rs. 18004/- For Medical Bills 6 Rs. 25,000/- For physical pain, mental agony and permanent disability 5. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is a meager sum in view of the injuries sustained by the appellant, therefore, the same is liable to be enhanced. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in the light of finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to issue no.3 relating to quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's evidence in detail while deciding this issue. As per Ex. 7 – Injury Report, the appellant sustained two simple and one grievous injury. As per permanent disability certificate Ex. 11, he suffered 3% permanent disability. The appellant produced medical bills of the medicines and the entire amount spent by him in this regard has been allowed. 7. After considering all the facts and 4 circumstances of the case, particularly the number and nature of injuries and the percentage of permanent disability, I am of the view that amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 8. 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 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 5 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. 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.” 9. In view of above discussion, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation 6 Act is dismissed and appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits also. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK