1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4785/2008 {Ramesh Chand Versus Dhanna Ram & Others} Date of Order :: 1st December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. B.L. Dhakad for the appellant BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in motor accident took place on 2nd September, 1996 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 16th March, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Beawar in Claim Case No. 87/2004 (Old No. 138/1997), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 53,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 28th October, 1996 till the date of payment in his favour. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that looking to the nature of 2 injuries, the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is not an adequate amount. He further submits that in this accident his leg has been shortened by one inch, therefore, amount of compensation may be enhanced by modifying the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. The appellant sustained three injuries as per his injury report Ex.-435. One injury was simple in nature and two injuries were referred for X-ray and as per X-ray report Ex.-436, the fracture was found. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,000/- for one simple injury and Rs. 15,000/- for fracture sustained by him. The appellant remained admitted for five days and at the rate of Rs. 400/- per day, awarded Rs. 2,000/- for nutritious food, attendant and transportation charges. As per medical bills, Ex.-429 to 504, further awarded Rs. 5500/-. The appellant sustained 6.2% permanent disability. The appellant was in service in post office, therefore, due to his permanent disability, he did not suffer any loss of income as his pay has not been reduced by this permanent 3 disability and he is getting the same pay and other benefits, however, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded for this permanent disability by the Tribunal. Rs. 5,000/- has further been awarded for physical pain, nutritious food etc. and Rs. 10,000/- for injuries and treatment, thus, awarded total amount of Rs.53,500/- with interest. So far as shortening of leg by one inch of the appellant is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any documentary evidence in his favour to show this fact and his argument is not based on any evidence on record. Apart-from above, looking to the nature of injuries and percentage of permanent disability i.e. 6.2%, I find that the total amount of compensation awarded in the present case cannot be said to be inadequate and in my view the same appears to be just, fair and reasonable. The Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC Versus Mahadeva Shetty and Another {(2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 197} has observed that every method or 4 mode adopted for assessing the compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. 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 compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" 5 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.” 6. Looking to the number and nature of injuries, I find that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for by this Court. 7. 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