1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1523/2002 {Jaswant Singh Versus Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Another} Date of Order :: 12th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Man Singh Chundawat for the appellant Mr. G.S. Rathore for the respondents BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. 3. At the request of learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal was heard finally and the same is being disposed of. 4. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in motor accident took place on 1st October, 1994 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 25th June, 2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded the total compensation of Rs. 22,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 23rd November, 1994 in his favour. 2 5. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a meager amount and the same is liable to be enhanced. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned award and contended that amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award as well as the record of the Tribunal. There is no dispute in between both the parties that as per injury report (Ex.-8) of the appellant, he sustained four injuries, out of which three injuries were found to be simple in nature and one injury was found to be grievous. As per x-ray report (Ex.-6), there was one fracture. Although the appellant stated in his statement that he remained hospitalized for seven days but admittedly no document to prove this fact was placed on record. Admittedly, there was no permanent disability suffered by the appellant and no permanent disability certificate was filed in the present case. After considering the number and nature 3 of injuries, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 4000/- for medical bills, Rs. 2000/- for nutritious food and Rs. 1000/- for transportation, thus, awarded, total compensation of Rs. 22,000/- in the case. 8. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I find that for simple injuries and one grievous injury, the amount of compensation awarded in the present case cannot be said to be a meager amount, but in my view it is just, fair and reasonable compensation. 9. 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 4 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 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 5 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.” 10. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK