// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1618/2005 Mishri Lal Son of Ramphool Versus Abdul Lateef Khan & Others Date of Order ::: 15.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri B.L. Dhakar, Advocate, for Shri Jai Prakash Gupta, Counsel for appellant Shri Tripurari Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.3 #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was heard finally and is being disposed of. 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 13th May, 1999 and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 17th February, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, in Claim Application No.185/2004, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,91,888/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of claim application // 2 // i.e. 10th January, 2000, in his favour, as under:- 1. Rs.3,73,248/- Towards loss of income for 80% permanent disability 2. Rs.5,000/- For physical pain and mental agony 3. Rs.5,000/- Towards medicines as lump-sum amount in absence of any medical bills produced in the case 4. Rs.8,640/- For loss of income for four months during which he remained under treatment The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the income of the appellant properly. It is contended that the monthly income of the appellant was Rs.6,000/- whereas the Tribunal assessed it as Rs.2,160/- only; he, therefore, contended that the finding of the learned Tribunal to that extent is liable to be set- aside and the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned Award and contended that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. I have considered the submissions of the // 3 // learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Award as well as the record of the Tribunal. It is relevant to mention that so far as the age of the appellant and the multiplier adopted in the present case for the purpose of calculating the loss of income are concerned, the same have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The only question arises for consideration in the present appeal is about assessment of monthly income of the appellant. The appellant, in his claim application, pleaded that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. In his statement, he also stated on oath that his monthly income was Rs.6,000/-. However, he admitted that no documentary evidence was placed on the record to corroborate his statement about his monthly income. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant also admitted that no documentary evidence has been placed on the record to prove the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/-. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal, on the basis of Minimum Wages Act, assessed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.2,160/- i.e. Rs.25,920/- per annum and, on the basis of his age, applied the proper multiplier of 18 // 4 // and awarded a sum of Rs.3,73,248/- for 80% permanent disability suffered by the appellant. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the learned Tribunal assessed the income on the basis of Minimum Wages Act in absence of any documentary evidence. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in assessing the income of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case, and I do not find any force in the submission of 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 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:- // 5 // “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 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 // 6 // (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. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//