// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2698/2008 Smt. Meena Devi & Others Versus Abhishek Pareek & Others Date of Order ::: 12.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Anoop Agarwal, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation, being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 30th May, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,36,000/- in their favour, in respect of death of deceased Lekhraj Chouhan, who died on 30th March, 2005, due to injuries sustained by him in the motor-accident took place on 26th March, 2005. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not correctly assessing the income of the deceased. // 2 // He further contended that as per oral testimony, the monthly income of deceased was stated to be Rs.10,000/-, whereas the learned Tribunal assessed it as Rs.3,000/- per month only. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants admitted that no documentary evidence has been placed on the record to prove the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-. The learned Tribunal has considered the statement of AW-1 Smt. Meena, who stated that her husband (the deceased) was doing the business in the name 'Rajasthan General Store' and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month but, in her cross-examination, she admitted that neither she produced any document on the record to prove that the deceased was owner of 'Rajasthan General Store' nor produced any document relating to his income nor produced the income-tax return to prove the income of the deceased. She has further admitted that auto-rickshaw is lying with them, which is now being driven by a Driver. The learned Tribunal, in absence of any documentary evidence with regard to income of the deceased, assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and, after deducting 1/3rd amount out of it for his personal expenses, determined the // 3 // dependency amount as Rs.2,000/- and, keeping in view of his age i.e. 34 years, applied the multiplier of 17, and awarded Rs.4,08,000/- (2000x12x17) under the head of loss of income. The learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium in favour of his wife; Rs.5,000/- for deprivation of love and affection in favour of daughter; Rs.10,000/- for deprivation of love and affection in favour of the parents; Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/- for miscellaneous expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,36,000/-. After considering all the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, I find that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, in absence of any documentary evidence in support of his income. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal is required to pass an Award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which appears to be just and reasonable and, whatever may be the mode of assessment of income, the pivotal consideration is that it should be “just”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional // 4 // 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 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 // 5 // 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).” In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//