1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.5044/2008 Suresh Chand Sharma v/s Om Prakash Saini & Anr. Date of Judgment ::: 15th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Pankaj Gupta, for the appellant. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in motor accident which took place on 18.8.2005 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 8.8.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, whereby the learned learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,06,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 21.11.2005 the date of filing of the claim application, in his favour. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant sustained four fractures therefore, looking to the nature of injuries 2 suffered by the appellant, the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is not a reasonable amount and the same is liable to be enhanced. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of finding of the learned Tribunal regarding quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence both while considering the issue relating to quantum of compensation. As per injury report Ex.5, the appellant sustained five injures. As per Ex.6, four injuries were found to be grievous in nature. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- for four grievous injuries as compensation. As per permanent disability certificate, Ex. 14, the appellant suffered 21.69% permanent disability, he was 35 years of age at the time of accident and after assessing his monthly income, in absence of any evidence, as Rs.2,160/- per month i.e. annual income as Rs.25,920/- and after applying the multiplier of 16 as per the age, awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of income in view of his 21.69% permanent disability. The 3 Tribunal further awarded Rs.2,000/- spent by the appellants in Jain Hospital, Rs.2500/- were further awarded towards medical bills, Rs.1,000/- for transportation charges and Rs.1000/- for nutritious food have also been awarded. Thus, total compensation of Rs.1,06,500/- has been awarded. 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 4 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 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 5 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 find that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just, fair and reasonable looking to the number and nature of injuries and percentage of permanent disability suffered by him and I do not find any error in the impugned award so as to interference with the same. consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. Chauhan/