// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1735/2006 Kajod Son of Shri Raghunath Ram Versus Bheeka Ram Son of Shri Kalu Ram and Others Date of Order ::: 23.10.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Vinay Mathur, Advocate, for Shri Sandeep Mathur, Counsel for appellant #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. For enhancement of amount of awarded compensation, injured-claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned Award dated 16th November, 2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, whereby the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.62,000/- in his favour under the following heads:- 1. Expenses incurred on medical treatment Rs.13,000/- 2. Physical pain and mental agony Rs.10,000/0 3. Nutritious diet Rs.05,000/- 4. Loss of income Rs.24,000/- 5. Permanent disability Rs.10,000/- // 2 // The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal committed an illegality in not applying the formula of multiplier system while awarding the compensation under the head of loss of income. He, therefore, contended that the amount of compensation under this head be enhanced. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of reasons assigned by the Tribunal. The injured was working on the post of 'khalasi' (conductor) and pleaded his income as Rs.5,000/- per month, however, neither he produced his income-certificate nor got examined his employer in support of his contention. The Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-, treating him to be a skilled labour and, as per his statement that he could not work for 8 months, awarded compensation of Rs.24,000/- under the head of loss of income. So far as compensation awarded under other heads is concerned, the same has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant. 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 // 3 // 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 "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 // 4 // 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).” After considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for not awarding compensation under the head “loss of income” and under other heads, I find that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//