1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.979/2004 (Prabhu Dayal Versus Samundar Singh & Another) Date of Order :: 24th October, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. D.K. Bhardwaj for the appellant Mr. R.P. Vijay for Mrs. Archana Mantri for the respondents Admit. Mr. R.P. Vijay appears on behalf of Mrs. Archana Mantri for the contesting respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal on behalf of claimant is directed against impugned award dated 26th February, 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in an accident took place on 31st October, 1998 arising out of use of motor vehicle. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the compensation in respect of loss of income of the appellant by applying the multiplier as per Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act. He contended that even if Rs. 80/- is treated as minimum wage at the relevant time and looking 2 to the age of appellant i.e. 26 years is taken into consideration, then the multiplier of 18 ought to have been allowed. He contended that if multiplier system would have been applied, then the total compensation in respect of 27.89% permanent disability comes to Rs. 1,08,436/-, whereas the Tribunal has awarded total lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- including the medical bills of Rs. 8500/- in the present case, therefore, the compensation in respect of loss of income may be enhanced in the present case. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just and reasonable looking to the nature of injuries and percentage of permanent disablement. He contended that whatever mode of calculating the compensation is adopted, the just compensation has to be taken into consideration. He further contended that lumpsum amount has already been paid to the appellant. In these circumstances, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award and record of the Tribunal. 3 The Tribunal while deciding issue no. 4 has discussed the evidence relating to age, income and injuries of the injured appellant. It is stated that appellant was labourer and was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. No documentary evidence with regard to income has been placed on record. The appellant stated that he spent Rs. 25,000/- in the treatment but he has produced the bills of Rs. 8500/- only. As per permanent disablement certificate Ex.-12, he sustained 27.89% permanent disability. He remained admitted in hospital from 1st November, 1998 to 18th November, 1998. The Tribunal considered that as per medicines bills Ex. 14 to Ex. 74, the appellant spent Rs. 8500/-. As per evidence available on record, treatment continued for three months and as such he suffered a loss of income of Rs. 6000/-. However, looking to the percentage of permanent disability and under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation in the present case. 7. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the evidence available on record, I find that looking to the nature of injuries, age and 4 income of the appellant, the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable. 8. 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 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 5 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 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 6 and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non- arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just.” 9. In view of above discussions, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal so as to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR Jain),J. DK