// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2355/2006 Smt. Gandhi Devi W/o Sooraj Singh Versus Hanuman Singh S/o Shri Magan Singh and Others Date of Order ::: 11.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri V.S. Badhwar, Counsel for appellant Shri Neeraj Tiwari and Shri Deepak Soni, Advocate, for Shri Praveen Balwada, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Admit. The respondents are represented by their respective counsel. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal is heard finally. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation, being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 26th September, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment in her favour in respect of injuries sustained by her in the motor accident took place on 9th March, // 2 // 2004. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and she was illiterate lady, therefore, she could not produce any documentary evidence in support of her income and in absence of any documentary evidence the learned Tribunal did not assess her income properly. He further contended that the appellant suffered 35% permanent disability, therefore, looking to the percentage of permanent disability, the amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is inadequate and the same may be enhanced reasonable. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned Award and contended that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Award and the record of the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, while considering the Issue No.3 relating to quantum of compensation has considered the statement of AW-1 Smt. Gandhi Devi, who stated that she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and she spent // 3 // Rs.1,50,000/- on medical treatment. So far as income of deceased is concerned, there is no dispute in between both the parties that no documentary evidence in support of income of the appellant was produced on the record. So far as medical expenses as stated by AW-1 is concerned, the learned Tribunal observed that the appellant has placed on the record the medical bills, receipts, prescriptions (Exhibit-14 to Exhibit-19, Exhibit-21 to Exhibit-89 and Exhibit-91 to Exhibit-96), amounting to Rs.15,000/- only. As per the injury-report (Exhibit-7) of the appellant, she sustained two injuries. As per the X-ray Report (Exhibit-8), one injury was found to be grievous as there was fracture of cubic bone; another injury was found to be simple in nature. As per the permanent-disability- certificate the appellant suffered 35% permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- for grievous injury, Rs.1,000/- for simple injury, Rs.9,000/- for 18 days during which she remained admitted in hospital, Rs.15,000/- for medical bills, and remaining amount up-to Rs.1,00,000/-, for 35% permanent disability and physical pain and mental agony. The statement of AW-1 in respect of her income is not supported by any documentary evidence, // 4 // therefore, the learned Tribunal did not assess her income on the basis of her statement. So far as the amount incurred on medical treatment is concerned, the statement of AW-1 was not supported by any documentary evidence in this regard and it came on the record that the appellant produced on the record the medical bills only for Rs.15,000/-, which has been allowed by the learned Tribunal. IN these circumstances, I do not find any force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Act of 1988, which appears to be just, fair and reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of each case. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation, which is the pivotal consideration. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just and reasonable and no interference in the finding of the learned Tribunal 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 // 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 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 // 6 // "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 not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//