// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.761/1999 Manish S/o Late Shri Raj Kumar Versus M.K. Vassu S/o Kipu Govada and Others 2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.759/1999 Ram Sharan S/o Shri Pooran Chandra and Others Versus M.K. Vassu S/o Kipu Govada and Others 3. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.760/1999 Ram Sharan S/o Shri Pooran Chandra & Another Versus M.K. Vassu S/o Kipu Govada and Others 4. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.752/1999 Smt. Malti Widow of late Shri Prabhu Dayal and Another Versus M.K. Vassu S/o Kipu Govada and Others 5. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.754/1999 Ram Sharan S/o Shri Pooran Chandra and Another Versus M.K. Vassu S/o Kipu Govada and Others 6. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.755/1999 Smt. Lalita Widow of Late Shri Shankar Lal and Others Versus M.K. Vassu S/o Kipu Govada and Others 7. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.188/1999 Smt. Malti Widow of Prabhu Dayal and Another Versus M.K. Vassu S/o Kipu Govada and Others // 2 // 8. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.753/1999 Smt. Malti Widow of Late Shri Prabhu Dayal and Another Versus M.K. Vassu S/o Kipu Govada and Others Date of Order ::: 21.10.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Mahendra Goyal with Shri Intjar Ali, Counsel for appellants Ms. Raj Sharma, Counsel for respondent Insurance Company #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. These eight appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on behalf of the injured/legal heirs of the deceased/claimants, for enhancement of the amount of compensation, arise out of same motor accident took place on 3rd January, 1991 and are directed against the common impugned award dated 29th July, 1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, therefore, all the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common. In the present unfortunate accident, arising out of use of motor vehicle, nine persons died and one sustained injuries. The claimants, i.e. the injured and the legal representatives of the deceased-persons, filed // 3 // ten separate claim applications before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which were allowed and the learned Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of the claimants. Being aggrieved with the same, the injured/claimants filed ten separate miscellaneous appeals before this Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Two miscellaneous appeals being S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeals No.768/1999 and 762/1999, relating to death of minor children, were heard and decided along-with other identical matters, by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 24th May, 2007, whereby the awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- in SB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.768/1999 and the awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- was enhanced to Rs.1,80,000/- in SB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.762/1999. So far as these eight appeals are concerned, the points regarding negligence of driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and the liability of the Insurance Company are concerned, the same are not in dispute and thus these points have not been argued and the learned counsel for both the parties restricted their arguments with regard to the quantum of // 4 // compensation only. In all the cases, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate looking to the injury, age and income of the injured and deceased-persons. The Tribunal has applied wrong multiplier looking to the age of the deceased in the present case. The unit system formula has not been applied properly and the amount of compensation should have been awarded by following the principle of multiplier system in all the cases. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that as per the settled proposition of law, the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable and it should neither be meager amount nor should it be a bonanza or a source of profit. The compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. The respondents, therefore, contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all the cases is just and reasonable. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and record of the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty – (2003) 7 SCC 197, held that compensation is not expected // 5 // 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 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 // 6 // 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).” Discussion, finding and conclusion on individual case 1. SB CMA No.761/1999:- This appeal relates to compensation in respect of injured claimant Manish; he was 11 years of age; he sustained two fractures; his leg has been shortened by 2.5”; he sustained injuries on his eye and his teeth were also broken; he sustained total five injuries; he suffered 12% permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.91,000/- in the following manner - // 7 // Rs.15,000/- under the three heads i.e. medical treatment, nutritious diet and transportation charges incurred by him during his treatment; Rs.30,000/- under the head of physical pain and mental agony; Rs.10,000/- for the injuries sustained on head, eyes and teeth; Rs.36,000/- for permanent disability. The accident relates to the year 1991. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in this case under the aforesaid heads appears to be just and reasonable and, in my view, the same does not call for any interference. The award of the Tribunal in this respect is perfectly justified and I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 2. SB CMA No.759/1999:- This appeal relates to compensation in respect of deceased Pramod Kumar. The parents, brothers and sisters were the claimants. The Tribunal rejected the claim of brothers and sisters. Smt. Ramkali, mother of deceased, also died during trial of the case, therefore, sole claimant in the present case is Ram Sharan, the father of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.73,000/- in favour of the claimant; it accepted the income of the deceased to be // 8 // Rs.50,000/- per annum; age of claimant Ram Sharan as 54 years at the time of filing of claim petition and 60 years at the time of his statement; looking to the age of the claimant, it applied the multiplier of 7; the unit system was applied and thus awarded total compensation of Rs.63,000/- towards loss of income and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of reasons assigned by the Tribunal, I find that the compensation awarded in the present case appears to be inadequate. The unit system applied by the Tribunal in the present case does not appear to be correct one. Even if the finding of the Tribunal regarding income of the deceased and age of the claimant, is accepted to be correct then it is clear that the income of the deceased as per the Income-tax Return was Rs.50,000/- per annum. In ordinary course 1/3rd amount is deducted towards personal expenses of deceased, but, keeping in view the fact that in the present case, the wife and children of the deceased have also died, I think it fit and proper to deduct one-half amount out of Rs.50,000/- and award the amount of compensation on the basis of remaining one- half i.e. Rs.25,000/-; after applying the // 9 // multiplier of 7, as applied by the Tribunal, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,75,000/- (25000x7). The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and after adding this amount, the total compensation comes to Rs.1,85,000/-. Accordingly the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.73000/- to Rs.1,85,000/-. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. 3. SB CMA No.760/1999:- This appeal relates to compensation in respect of deceased Smt. Sheela Wife of Pramod Kumar; she was 31 years of age; the claim petition was filed on behalf of father-in-law Ram Sharan and mother-in-law Ramkali; the mother-in-law Ramkali also died during trial of the claim petition. Claimant Ram Sharan was 54 years of age; the Tribunal awarded the lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the heads of mental agony, deprivation of love and affection etc. The Tribunal did not award any amount separately for loss of income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others – AIR 2001 SC 3218, held that the value of services of the housewives, taking into consideration their // 10 // multifarious services rendered by them for managing the entire family even on a modest estimation, should be assumed to be Rs.3,000/- per month or Rs.36,000/- per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59, who were active in life. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that so far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 60 to 72, the value of services rendered by them should be Rs.2,000/- per month or Rs.24,000/- per annum. In the present case, deceased Sheela, as per the finding of the Tribunal, was 31 years of age and as per the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court her income is assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. In ordinary course 1/3rd amount is deducted towards personal expenses of deceased, but, keeping in view the fact that in the present case the husband and children of the deceased have also died, I think it fit and proper to deduct one-half amount out of Rs.36,000/- and award the compensation on the basis of remaining one-half i.e. Rs.18,000/- per annum; the claimant Ram Sharan was about 54 years of age and the multiplier of 7 has been applied while awarding the compensation in SB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.759/1999, therefore, same multiplier // 11 // of 7 is also applied in the present case. Therefore, the compensation under the head loss of income comes to Rs.1,26,000/- (18000x7). I further award Rs.24,000/- in lump sum for deprivation of love and affection, mental agony, funeral expenses and other heads, therefore, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,50,000/-. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. The appeal accordingly stands allowed and the impugned award is modified to that extent. 4. SB CMA No.752/1999:- This appeal relates to compensation in respect of death of Raj Kumar, aged about 37 years; the claim petition was filed on behalf of his parents Prabhu Dayal and Smt. Malti as well as his son Manish; the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2500/- per month; multiplier of 13 was adopted in the case; claimant Prabhu Dayal, father of the deceased, died during trial of the claim petition; Smt. Malti Devi was about 57 years of age on the date of her statement; the Tribunal awarded Rs.93,600/- towards loss of income and Rs.10,000/- towards deprivation of love and affection and for suffering mental agony etc. The total compensation awarded in the present // 12 // case is Rs.1,03,600/-. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Tribunal committed an illegality in not awarding adequate compensation looking to the age of the deceased and claimants, as well as income of the deceased. As per the finding of the Tribunal the income of the deceased was Rs.2500/- per month i.e. Rs.30,000/- per annum. In ordinary course 1/3rd amount is deducted towards personal expenses of deceased, but, keeping in view the fact that the wife of the deceased has died in the accident and his father also died during trial of the case and his son Manish is getting compensation in five cases, I think it fit and proper to deduct one-half amount out of Rs.30,000/- and award the amount of compensation on the basis of remaining one-half i.e. Rs.15,000/- per annum. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 and it needs no change. Therefore, total amount of compensation under the head of loss of income comes to Rs.1,95,000/-. Rs.10,000/- are further added as awarded by the Tribunal under the head of deprivation of love and affection and suffering of mental agony etc. The total compensation thus comes to Rs.2,05,000/-. Accordingly the // 13 // amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,03,000/- to Rs.2,05,000/-. The appeal accordingly stands allowed and the impugned award is modified to that extent. 5. SB CMA No.754/1999:- This appeal relates to compensation in respect of death of Baby Jhunjhun, aged about one-and-half-year; the claim petition was filed on behalf of grandmother and grandfather as her parents also died in the accident; the grandmother also died during trial of the claim petition; her grandfather Ram Sharan was 54 years of age; the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lump sum. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties I find that the Tribunal committed an illegality in not awarding adequate amount of compensation in the present case. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, while allowing S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.768/1999 vide judgment dated 24th May, 2007, enhanced the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- in the case of child of this age, therefore, I think it fit and proper to enhance the amount of compensation in the present case to Rs.1,00,000/- in lump sum. Accordingly, the amount of compensation is enhanced from // 14 // Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. The appeal accordingly stands allowed. The impugned award is modified to that extent. 6. SB CMA No.755/1999:- This appeal relates to compensation in respect of death of Shankarlal, who was 30 years of age; the claim petition was filed on behalf of his wife Lalita, aged about 22 years, two sons and father; the claimants pleaded that deceased was earning Rs.100/- per day as he was driver but they did not produce his income- certificate on the record; the matter relates to the year 1991; the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month; looking to his age, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 14 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,68,000/- under the head of loss of income by adopting unit system; the Tribunal further awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head 'deprivation of love and affection', 'mental agony' etc. Thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,78,000/-. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that the Tribunal committed an illegality in not awarding adequate compensation. The Tribunal wrongly determined the income of the deceased as Rs.1500/- per // 15 // month only. He was driver. As per statement, he was earning Rs.100/- per day. His age was 30 years on the date of the accident; the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 14 only, whereas, as per the second schedule appended to the Act of 1988, the multiplier to be applied in the cases of deceased aged about 25 years and not exceeding 30 years, is 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I assess the income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- per month i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum; and, after deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses, the loss of yearly income comes to Rs.16000/- and on applying the multiplier of 18, the amount of compensation under the head of “loss of income” comes to Rs.2,88,000/-; under other heads i.e. deprivation of love and affection, suffering of mental agony etc., an amount of Rs.12,000/- is further awarded. The total amount of compensation thus comes to Rs.3,00,000/-. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The total amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,78,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. The impugned award is modified to that extent. 7. SB CMA No.188/1999:- This appeal relates to compensation in respect of death of 9 years old Master Mohit; the claim petition was filed on behalf of his // 16 // grandfather Prabhu Dayal, grandmother Smt. Malti and brother Manish; the grandfather also died during trial of the claim petition; grandmother Smt. Malti stated her age to be 70 years on the date of statement; the Tribunal recorded a finding in respect of her age that she was 60 years old; the age of his brother Manish has been determined to be 17 years; the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lump sum under the heads of deprivation of love and affection, mental agony etc. No specific amount of compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of income. While deciding S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.754/1999 in respect of deceased Baby Jhunjhun, aged about one-and-half year old, a total compensation of a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded, as above. Looking to the age of the deceased in this case and keeping in view other facts and circumstances of the case, I think it fit and proper to enhance the amount of compensation to Rs.1,25,000/-. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The amount of Compensation is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/-. The impugned award is modified to that extent. 8. SB CMA No.753/1999:- This appeal relates to the compensation // 17 // in respect of death of Smt. Vasundhara Wife of Raj Kumar; the claim petition was filed on behalf of her mother-in-law and son as her husband also died in the accident; deceased was 35 years of age; the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lump sum. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in not passing the adequate amount of compensation and the same is liable to be enhanced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others – AIR 2001 SC 3218, held that the value of service of housewives, taking into consideration their multifarious services being rendered by them for managing the entire family even on a modest estimation, should be Rs.3,000/- per month or Rs.36,000/- per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59, who were active in life. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that so far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 60 to 72, the value of their services rendered by them should be Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. In the present case, deceased Smt. Vasundhara, as per the finding of // 18 // the Tribunal, was 35 years of age and as per the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court her income is assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. In ordinary course 1/3rd amount is deducted towards personal expenses of deceased, but, keeping in view the fact that in the present case the husband of the deceased also died, I think it fit and proper to deduct one-half amount out of Rs.36,000/- and to award the compensation on the basis of remaining one-half i.e. Rs.18,000/- per annum; looking to the age of the claimant i.e. mother-in-law of the deceased the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 7, therefore, same multiplier of 7 is also applied here also and after applying the same the compensation under the head loss of income comes to Rs.1,26,000/- (18000x7). I further award Rs.24,000/- in lump sum for deprivation of love and affection, mental agony, funeral expenses and other heads, therefore, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,50,000/-. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. The appeal accordingly stands allowed and the impugned award is modified to that extent. As stated above, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.761/1999 is dismissed // 19 // and the Award of the Tribunal impugned thereunder is maintained whereas rest seven appeals i.e. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeals No.759/1999, 760/1999, 752/1999, 754/1999, 755/1999, 188/1999 and 753/1999 are allowed, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced, as mentioned above, and the Award of the Tribunal impugned thereunder is modified to the extent indicated above. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest also at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of award of the Tribunal i.e. 29th July, 1997, till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. Since eight appeals have been disposed of by this common order, the Registry is directed to place a copy of it in other seven connected appeals. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//