1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4879/2008 {Smt. Paramjeet Kaur & Others Versus Jakir Hussain & Others} Date of Order :: 2nd December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. J.R. Chaudhary for the appellants BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of late Shri Ajay Singh, who died in motor accident took place on 16th April, 2001 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 4th May, 2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 10,71,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 7th August, 2001 in their favour. 3. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellants are two fold. First is that looking to the age of deceased the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied in the present 2 case as per Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, therefore, the Tribunal committed an illegality in applying the multiplier of 17, and, second submission is that the Tribunal committed an illegality in awarding the rate of interest only @ 6% per annum, whereas it should have been 9% per annum. He, therefore, contended that amount of compensation may be enhanced accordingly. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned finding of the learned Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal while considering the issue no.4 relating to quantum of compensation has considered the statement of PW-1 Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, who stated that the age of her husband was 30 years and his monthly salary was Rs. 6936/-. He was teacher in Zila Parisahd. So far as the monthly income of deceased is concerned, the same is proved from Ex. 16. The Tribunal considered the future prospects also and assessed the dependency @ Rs. 7500/- per month. So far as determination of age of deceased and applicability of multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal observed that in the postmortem report (Ex.-11), the age of deceased has been mentioned as 30 years and consequently applied the multiplier of 17. It is relevant to 3 mention that deceased was government servant and his date of birth was easily available with the appellants, but for the reasons best known to them, the same was not produced. The date of birth could have been placed on record even by placing the appointment order of the deceased on record. In absence of any specific documentary evidence and the best evidence which was available with the appellants, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17. As per Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Act, the multiplier of 17 is applied where the age of victim is above 30 years, but not exceeding 35 years and multiplier of 18 is applied where he is above 25 years, but not exceeding 30 years. In my view, the learned Tribunal did not commit any illegality by applying the multiplier of 17 in the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly when appellants with-held the best evidence in respect of date of birth of the deceased, which was available with them. So far as second submission of the learned counsel for the appellants about rate of interest is concerned, I find that it was the discretion of the learned Tribunal, which has rightly been exercised judiciously. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that rate of 4 interest awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be at a lower rate, therefore, I do not find any force in both the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. 6. Apart-from above, it is also relevant to mention that Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which appears to be just and reasonable. Every mode or method adopted for assessing the compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation, which is the pivotal consideration. Admittedly, the monthly income of the deceased was less than Rs. 7000/- and the total compensation awarded in the present case is Rs. 10,71,500/- with interest, therefore, in my view, the said amount of compensation cannot be said to be inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 7. 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 5 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 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 6 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.” 8. 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