1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4438/2008 {Smt. Hansa Kanwar & Others Versus Trilok Singh & Others} Date of Order :: 15th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. J.P. Gupta for the appellants BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The legal heirs of deceased Ram Kunwar Singh @ Ram Singh have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of his death took place on 20th August, 2007 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 1st July, 2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer in MACT Case No. 564/2007, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded the total compensation of Rs. 6,01,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim application in their favour as under:- Rs. 5,44,000/- for Loss of income Rs. 20,000/- for Loss of consortium Rs. 30,000/- for Deprivation of love and affection Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses 2 Rs. 2000/- for transportation 3. The only submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that Tribunal has committed an illegality in not assessing the income of the deceased properly. It is contended that deceased was working as Shiksha Sahyogi and was getting the monthly income / stipend of Rs. 4,000/- on the date of accident, but there were all chances of his regularization as teacher and in case he would have been regularized, then his salary would have been doubled, therefore, his income should have been assessed accordingly. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants in the light of reasons assigned by the Tribunal for awarding the amount of compensation, particularly under the head of loss of income. It is relevant to mention that so far as the age of deceased and multiplier applied in the present case are concerned, the same are not in dispute and same have also not been challenged by learned counsel for the appellants. The question for consideration in the present appeal is only as to whether the monthly income of deceased should be doubled for the purpose of assessing the dependency amount or not. So 3 far as the monthly income of deceased on the date of accident is concerned, there is no dispute that the same was Rs. 4000/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Versus Jashuben and Others {(2008) 4 SCC 162} considered the similar controversy and held that post-death revision of pay of deceased is irrelevant. The only relevant factor is income of the deceased at the time of accident. Para 13 and 14 of the judgment are reproduced as under:- “13. It is not a case where, as on the date of death, the salary of the deceased was revised with retrospective effect from 1994. Salary would be revised or not was not known at that part of time. Only because such salary was revised at a later point of time, the same by itself would not have been a factor which could have been taken into consideration for determining the amount of compensation. The Tribunal, therefore, committed a serious illegality in taking into consideration the latter aspect. 14. The amount of compensation indisputably should be determined having regard to the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by reason of the death of the victim. It was necessary to consider the earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident. Of course, further (sic future) prospect is not out of bound for such consideration. But the same should be founded on some legal principle.” 5. This Court in Union of India & Another 4 Versus Jaishree & Others {2006 ACJ 1291 (Raj.)} also held that if the multiplier as per Second Schedule is adopted, then the income of the deceased at the time of his death is to be taken and no increase can be made on the consideration of future prospects. 6. Para 32 of the judgment is reproduced as under: “32. Thus in my view it can very safely be said that now it is a settled legal position settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while applying the multiplier, seeking guidance from the Second Schedule, the income of the deceased as he was earning at the time of death alone has to be taken into account. Obviously, therefore it cannot be enhanced on consideration of future prospects of increase. Thus the judgments taking contrary view, as relied upon by the learned trial court, in my view, in view of the subsequent judgments of Apex Court including the larger Bench judgment in Trilok Chand's case, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC) need not be dilated upon by me.” 7. The aforesaid judgment has further been referred and approved by Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur in National Insurance Company Versus Smt. Vinod Chaudhary – S.B.C.M.A. No. 1316/2005, decided on 26th September, 2005. 8. Apart-from above it is relevant to mention that Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles 5 Act, which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. Every mode or method adopted for assessing the amount of compensation has to be taken into consideration in the background of “just” compensation, which is the pivotal consideration. 9. After considering the income and age of the deceased, I find that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 4000/- per month, whereas the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation in the present case of Rs. 6,01,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, therefore, in my view, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 10. 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 6 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: “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 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 7 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.” 11. 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