// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2544/2007 Sunil Kumar Son of Sita Ram Versus Ashok Son of Om Prakash Jaiswal and Others Date of Order ::: 23.10.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ritesh Jain, Counsel for appellant #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. For enhancement of amount of awarded compensation, injured-claimant-appellant Sunil Kumar, aged about 9 years, has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 through his natural guardian, against the impugned Award dated 22nd March, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, whereby the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.25,500/- in his favour under the following heads:- S. No. Headings Amount 1. For one grievous and three simple injuries Rs.8000/- 2. Permanent disability (11.70%) Rs.15000/- 3. Expenses incurred on medical treatment Rs.1500/- 4. Nutritious diet Rs.1000/- // 2 // The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal committed an illegality in not awarding compensation under the head of loss of income; it should have considered his notional annual income at Rs.15000/- and accordingly should have awarded the compensation in favour of the appellant. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award. Admittedly, the appellant was 9 years of age and was not earning anything. There is no evidence available on the record showing him to have been earning anything. So far as other 'heads' are concerned, the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.5,000/- for one grievous and Rs.3,000/- for three simple injuries. As per permanent- disability-certificate (Exhibit-10), the appellant sustained 11.70% permanent disability and the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- under this head. The Tribunal also awarded compensation for expenses incurred on his medical treatment and nutritious diet. 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 // 3 // 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 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 // 4 // 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 present case, I am of the view that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the present case appears to be just and reasonable looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal are perfectly justified and I do not find any ground to interfere with the same. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//