1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1071/2008 {Smt. Ramkanwari Bai & Others Versus Jagdish Bairagi & Others} Date of Order :: 17th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. N.U. Qazi for the appellants BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the appeal as well as on merits of the appeal also. 2. So far as delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is concerned, I am satisfied that a sufficient ground is made out for condonation of delay, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed. 3. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the legal heirs of deceased Bhawani Shanker have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of his death arising out of use of motor vehicle on 29th March, 2004 and being 2 aggrieved with the impugned award dated 29th October, 2007 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota in Claim Case No. 66/2006 (405/2005), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,52,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application in their favour as under: Sr. Amount Under the head 1 Rs, 3,12,000/- For loss of income 2 7500/- For deprivation of love and affection 3 Rs. 15,000/- For loss of consortium to wife 4 Rs. 15,000/- For deprivation of love and affection to daughter 4. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellants is about assessment of income of the deceased. It is contended that monthly income of deceased was Rs. 6000/-, whereas the Tribunal wrongly assessed his income as Rs. 3000/-. He, therefore, contended that monthly income of the deceased may be re- assessed and amount of compensation may be enhanced accordingly. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants in the light of finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard 3 to issue no.5 relating to quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has considered the statement of AW-1 Balibai, AW-2 Ramkanwari Bai and AW-3 Laxmi Kumari, who stated that monthly income of deceased who was driver by profession was Rs. 6000/-. However, it is an admitted fact that no documentary evidence or cogent evidence was placed on record to prove the monthly income of Rs. 6000/- of the deceased in the present case and in absence of documentary evidence the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 3,000/- and in view of his age i.e. 46 years applied the multiplier of 13 as per Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant about wrong assessment of monthly income of deceased by the Tribunal is concerned, I find that during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute that there was no documentary evidence available on record to prove the monthly income of the deceased. He relied upon the oral testimony of AW-1 to AW-3. In my view the learned Tribunal was fully justified in assessing the monthly income of Rs. 3000/- of the deceased in absence of any 4 cogent or documentary evidence in this regard and Tribunal has not committed any illegality in it. Even otherwise, I am of the view that looking to the income and age of the deceased, the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,52,500/- with interest awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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 5 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 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 8. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK