// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3787/2006 Abdul Rashid Khan S/o Shri Abdul Hamid Versus Anwar Parvejan S/o Shri Sagir Mohammad & Anr. Date of Order ::: 24.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Yusuf Khan, Advocate, for Shri Abdul Kalam Khan, Counsel for appellant Shri Surendra Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.1 Shri P.K. Kasliwal with Shri C.M. Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.2 #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Shri P.K. Kasliwal with Shri C.M. Sharma appears for the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was heard finally and is being disposed of. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in a motor-accident took place on 16th November, 2004, and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 2nd June, 2006, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3 & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, // 2 // Kota in Claim Case No.908/2006, whereby the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,09,800/- (Rupees one lac nine thousand and eight hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 10th January, 2005 till realization in his favour as under:- 1. Rs.40,000/- For physical pain and mental agony on account of suffering 11% permanent disability, 2. Rs.2,000/- For two simple injuries 3. Rs.4,000/- For transportation charges 4. Rs.44,800/- For medical bills 5. Rs.15,000/- For loss of income 6. Rs.4,000/- For nutritious food etc. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant sustained 11% permanent disability and, looking to the percentage of his permanent disability, the amount of compensation, awarded in the present case, is inadequate, therefore, the same may be enhanced. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appellant sustained only three injuries and, out of them, injury No.1 was grievous in nature, therefore, looking to // 3 // number and nature of injuries and percentage of permanent disability, the total amount of compensation awarded in the present case cannot be said to be a meager amount and in these circumstances no interference in the impugned Award is called for. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Award as well as the record of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out specifically as to under which head the amount of compensation has been awarded towards lower side. A bare perusal of the impugned Award shows that under each and every head the amount of compensation has been awarded, the details of which have been mentioned above. Looking to the number and nature of injuries and the percentage of permanent disability sustained by the appellant, I find that the amount of compensation of Rs.1,09,800/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest from the date of claim application, cannot be said to be a meager amount. In my view, the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. // 4 // 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 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 // 5 // "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. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC (AIR 1998 SC 3191).” In view of the above discussions, 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//