1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4298/2008 {Suresh Kumar Versus Krishna Kumar & Others} Date of Order :: 3rd November, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Lokendra Singh Shekhawat for the appellant BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal on behalf of injured appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the impugned award dated 5th July, 2008 for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Tribunal has committed an illegality in not believing upon the disability certificate Ex.-9 and for not awarding any amount of compensation for the same, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be modified and amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in the light of finding of the Tribunal in respect of 2 relevant issue i.e. issue no.4, wherein the Tribunal has observed that as per injury report Ex. 4, the appellant sustained three injuries, but no X-ray report has been produced in the case. He remained admitted upto 25th December,2002 i.e. four days as per discharge ticket Ex. 10. So far as disability certificate is concerned, the Tribunal has observed that it has not been issued by Medical Board, but it has been issued by one Dr. i.e. Dr. R.G. Atal, who has not been examined in the matter. However, after considering all the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs. 30,000/- for physical pain and mental agony, partial disability and loss of income etc. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 3785/- for medicines as per bills Ex. 14 to 28. Thus, the Tribunal awarded total amount of Rs. 33,800/- in favour of claimant alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the application. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant shown the disability certificate of the appellant, wherein 4.3% disability was shown. The learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the injured appellant was examined by Dr. R.G. Atal on 22nd May, 2004 for the so-called injuries 3 sustained in an accident took place on 21st December, 2002 and this certificate has been issued / obtained after more than two years and five months from the date of accident. Although the Tribunal has observed that disability certificate should not be believed but still while awarding compensation the said fact has been taken into consideration. The disability certificate has been issued after two years and five months and the same has not been proved by the statement of Dr. R.G. Atal and it is not clear that the said permanent disability is result of injury sustained in the said accident, which took place in the year 2002. The three injuries were sustained and in view of the fact that X-ray report was not produced, it is not clear that even these injuries were grievous or not. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation of Rs. 33,800/- for the so-called three injuries, which can be said to be simple, in absence of any X-ray report. The amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be most reasonable and no interference in the same is called for. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 4 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 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 5 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.” 6 6. In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK