// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3398/2006 Smt. Nanchhi W/o Late Shri Ramkaran and Others Versus Tara Chand Son of Shri Chothu Ram and Another Date of Order ::: 26.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ashok Singh Shekhawat, 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 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in respect of death of Ramkaran, who died in a motor-accident took place on 3rd June, 2004 and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 27th April, 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in Claim Case No.422/2005 (573/2004), whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,16,000/- with interest at the rate of // 2 // 9% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 26th June, 2004, in their favour. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal committed an illegality in assessing the monthly income of the deceased. It is contended that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- from the contractor-ship and Rs.15,000/- per month as a 'mistri', whereas the learned Tribunal assessed his income at the rate of Rs.100/- per day i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum, which is not proper and justified, and the said finding may be modified and the amount of compensation may be enhanced accordingly. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal, particularly the finding in respect of Issue No.3 relating to quantum of compensation. The Tribunal, while considering the Issue No.3, has referred the pleading and the statement of AW-1 Nanchhi Devi for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has observed that in the claim application it has been mentioned that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- from the contractor-ship and Rs.15,000/- as 'mistri'. // 3 // AW-1 Nanchhi Devi, in her statement, stated that the monthly income of her husband was Rs.15,000/- per month. I have examined the statements of AW-1 Nanchhi Devi, AW-2 Ramswaroop and AW-3 Gopal Kumawat. AW-1 Nanchhi Devi, in her statement, stated that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month; in her cross- examination, she admitted that she does not have any Bank account nor her husband was having any bank account. AW-2 Ramswaroop has not stated anything about the income of the deceased but he said that the deceased was a mistri. He also admitted that they got the work of mistri only for 20 or 25 days in a month. AW-3 Gopal Kumawat has also not stated anything about monthly income of the deceased. Admittedly there is no documentary evidence on the record to prove the income of the deceased. The claimants have neither produced any certificate of the deceased showing his registration as contractor nor placed on the record his income-tax return showing his income. No witness, who engaged the deceased as contractor or mistri, has been got examined to prove as to how much amount was paid to the deceased for the work done by him. In these circumstances, the // 4 // learned Tribunal, on the basis of nature of the work and the age of the deceased, assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per day i.e. Rs.36,000/- per year and, after deducting 1/3rd amount for his personal expenses, determined the dependency as Rs.24,000/- per annum and, in view of his age, applied the multiplier of 16 and awarded a sum of Rs.3,84,000/- towards loss of income; Rs.2,000/- have further been for funeral expenses; Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium; Rs.10,000/- for deprivation of love and affection; thus the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,16,000/- in favour of the claimants in the present case. The learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any cogent oral or documentary evidence to take a view that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In these circumstances, I find that the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the annual income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/-. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. Even otherwise, I am of the view that the amount of compensation of Rs.4,16,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, appears to be just and reasonable. The Tribunal is required to pass // 5 // the award under Section 168 of the Act of 1988, which appears to be just and reasonable. In these circumstances, there is no illegality in the impugned Award so as to interfere with the same. 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 // 6 // 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 "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 in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//