// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3091/2005 Parveen Wife of late Salaamuddin and Others Versus Fatah Singh Son of Bhagwan Singh and Others Date of Order ::: 17.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ram Singh Rathore, Counsel for appellants Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate, for Shri Jitendra Pandey and Shri Nemi Chand Jain, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was heard finally and is being disposed of. The legal heirs of deceased Salaamuddin have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of his death, who died in a motor-accident took place on 5th September, 2003 and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 22nd July, 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Claim Application No.631/2005, whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,82,068/- with // 2 // interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim application, in their favour, as under:- 1. Rs.3,40,068/- For loss of income 2. Rs.25,000/- For loss of consortium 3. Rs.15,000/- For deprivation of love and affection to the applicants No.2 to 4 i.e. three children 4. Rs.2,000/- For last rites. The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is about assessment of monthly income of the deceased. It is contended that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.4,000/-, whereas the Tribunal wrongly assessed his monthly income as Rs.2,500/-. He referred the statement of AW-1 Parveen and Exhibit-13, in support of his contention. He, therefore, contended that the monthly income of the deceased may be reassessed and the amount of compensation may be enhanced accordingly. 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. In support // 3 // of the contention, he also referred Exhibit- NA/3 and Exhibit-NA/4 and the statements of the non-applicant's witnesses. 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 Tribunal, while considering the Issue No.4 relating to quantum of compensation, referred the statement of AW-1 Parveen Wife of the deceased and Exhibit-13, the certificate showing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-, and observed that Exhibit-13 is not reliable; the Tribunal further observed that Usman, who issued the certificate Exhibit-13, has also not been examined in the case. The non-applicants placed on the record a copy of statement of Mohd. Salim, the cousin brother of the deceased, which was marked as Exhibit-NA/3, wherein it was stated that the deceased was salesman in Soyeb Cloth Store and earning Rs.2,500/- per month. The investigator of Insurance Company also placed on the record his investigation-report Exhibit-NA/4, wherein the monthly income of the deceased is mentioned as Rs.2,500/-. I have examined the statement of AW-1 Parveen wife of the deceased, who, in her // 4 // statement, stated that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.4,000/-. However, in her cross-examination, she specifically admitted that the salary-certificate was not got prepared by her. She also admitted that in Exhibit-13 it has not been mentioned as to from which and up-to what date her husband worked as salesman at Soyeb Cloth Store. I also examined the document Exhibit-13, the salary certificate, issued by one Usman on behalf of Soyeb Cloth Store on 1st February, 2004. The incident took place on 5th September, 2003, whereas the said certificate was issued on 1st February, 2004 by one Usman. The period of service has not been mentioned in it. Usman has also not been examined in the case. AW-1 Parveen, in her statement, has admitted that she did not get the salary-certificate prepared, therefore, in my view, the learned Tribunal was right in not relying upon the said salary-certificate (Exhibit-13) and rightly relied upon the other evidence including the documents Exhibit-NA/3 and Exhibit-NA/4. In absence of any cogent evidence available on the record, the learned Tribunal was fully justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/-. So far as the age of the deceased and // 5 // the multiplier adopted for assessing the compensation under the head of loss of income, are concerned, I find that AW-1 Parveen herself has stated the age of her husband as 24 years and the same was also mentioned in the postmortem-report Exhibit-12 also. As per the Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier of 17 is applicable for the victim whose age is above 20 years but not exceeding 25 years, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier of 17 in the present case. In these circumstances, the finding of the learned Tribunal is based on evidence and I do not find any illegality or perversity in the same so as to interfere with the same. 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 // 6 // “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 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 // 7 // 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).” 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//