1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.748/1997 Abdul Gaffar v/s Satbeer & Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 24th November, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Vinay Mathur, for the appellant. Shri G.D. Parwal, for respondent No.2. Shri Ashok Singh on behalf of Shri G. Bardar, for respondent No.3. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties. The injured - appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him in motor accident which took place on 31.5.1991 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 10.6.1997 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.65,000/- in his favour with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of claim application i.e. 25.10.1991. The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has committed an illegality in not assessing the compensation under the head of loss of income by applying multiplier system. He contended that the best formula to award compensation in such cases, is by determining 2 the age and dependency amount. The multiplier may be adopted and the compensation may be awarded as per percentage of permanent disability. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that it is not necessary to adopt the multiplier system in each and every case. The “just” compensation, is required to be passed in respect of injury or death, as the case may be, looking to the facts and circumstances of each case. He contended that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case by the Tribunal, is just and reasonable looking to the nature & injury and the year of the accident i.e. 1991. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award as well as the record of the Tribunal. The appellant met with an accident on 31.5.1991 arising out of use of motor vehicle. As per injury report, he sustained three injuries. The injury No.3 was simple. Injury No.1 was grievous and injury No.2 was referred for x-ray advice. As per x-ray report, there was a dislocation in right ankle and fracture medial melliolus left ankle with restriction of the movements of ankle with 13% permanent disability in lower limbs. Ex 13, permanent disability certificate was placed on record wherein 13% permanent 3 disability was shown. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- for a period of 5 months during which he remained under treatment on the ground that he employed one servant at his shop, Rs.25,000/- was awarded for physical pain and mental agony and fracture sustained by him and Rs.25,000/- was further awarded for 13% permanent disability. Thus, the learned Tribunal awarded the total compensation of Rs.65,000/-. The learned Tribunal further awarded interest @ 15% p.a. with effect from 25.10.1991 i.e. the date when the claim application was filed upto the date of payment. The accident relates to the year 1991. The appellant sustained three injuries and 13% permanent disability. The Tribunal is required to pass an award u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which appears to be just and reasonable. Neither it should be a meager amount nor a bonanza. Looking to the number & nature of injury, percentage of permanent disability and the year of accident, I am of the view that the amount of compensation of Rs.65,000/- with interest @ 15% p.a., cannot be said to be a meager amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty – (2003) 7 SCC 197, has observed that every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the back ground of “just” 4 compensation which is the pivotal consideration. The Apex Court in Mahadea Shetty's case (supra) has also held 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 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 discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.K. Jain), J. Chauhan/