// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4076/2008 Chothmal Mali S/o Shri Kanaram Mali Versus Hemraj Sharma S/o Shri Ramji Lal Sharma and Others Date of Order ::: 18.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri H.R. Kumawat, Counsel for appellant #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in a motor-accident took place on 30th June, 2006 and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 28th May, 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Tonk (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk) in Claim Case No.240/2008 (352/2006), whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.68,764/-, in his favour. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in assessing the income of the appellant at the rate of Rs.1898/- per // 2 // month and at-least a sum of Rs.100/- per day ought to have been assessed as his income, therefore, the impugned Award is liable to be set-aside. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned Award, particularly the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue No.4 relating to amount of compensation. The appellant sustained 10% permanent disability as per Exhibit-171. The age of the appellant was in between 40 to 45 years. There was no documentary evidence in support of income of the appellant and in absence of it the Tribunal relied upon a Gazette Notification of the State Government dated 20th July, 2004, wherein the minimum wages of Rs.1898/- per month was mentioned and on that basis calculated the amount of compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.34,164/- towards loss of income after applying the proper multiplier. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.24,000/- for medical expenses, transportation and nutritious food etc. 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 // 3 // 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 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 // 4 // 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).” After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of injuries as well as percentage of permanent disability, the age and income of the appellant, I find that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//