1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4380/2008 {Smt. Neelam & Others Versus Peeyush Kumar & Others} Date of Order :: 7th November, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. B.C. Rawat for the appellants BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The legal representatives of deceased Anil Kumar Sharma, who died in a motor accident, which took place on 17th march, 2001, have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against impugned award dated 11th June, 2008, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation under all heads for a sum of Rs. 5,33,056/- in their favour. 3. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellants are two-folds; first is that Tribunal committed an illegality in not considering the future prospects of the deceased while calculating the amount of 2 compensation, and another is that the deceased was 35 years of age, therefore, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied in place of 16, therefore, the impugned award be modified and amount of compensation may be enhanced. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned award particularly the finding in respect of issue no.4 relating to quantum of compensation. So far as amount of salary paid to deceased is concerned, the same is not in dispute. The deceased was holding the post of Manager in 'Goras Bhandar', Murlipura, Jaipur. According to claimant, the deceased was getting Rs. 4500/-, but as per salary certificate Ex. 18 and salary register, the deceased was getting Rs. 3788/-. The learned Tribunal relied upon Ex. 18 and determined his income as Rs. 3852/-. So far as first submission regarding future prospects is concerned, this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Vinod Choudhary & Others - CMA No. 1316/2005, decided on 26th September, 2005, held that if the multiplier, as per second schedule is employed, then the income of the deceased, at the time of death only, is to be taken, and no increase can be 3 made, on the consideration of future prospects of increase. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “Coming to the calculation of compensation, in my view, in view of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, including that in UP State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors. Reported in JT 1996 (5) SC 356, which all have been considered, and followed, by this Court in Union o India Vs. Jai Shree & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 169/2005, decided on 19.9.2005 if the multiplier, as per second schedule is employed, then the income of the deceased, at the time of death only, is to be taken, and no increase can be made, on the consideration of future prospects of increase. Thus, to this extent, the assessment of compensation is required to be interfered with. The income of the deceased is established to be Rs. 5,000/- per month, which comes to Rs. 60,000/- per year, from out of that, deducting one third for personal expenditure, the net dependency comes to Rs. 40,000/- per year, and employing multiplier of 17 the compensation comes to Rs. 6,80,000/-.” 5. In view of above I do not find any substance in the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. 6. So far as another submission regarding multiplier to be used in the present case is concerned, the deceased was 35 years of age and multiplier of 16 is applicable for the victim 4 of the age of 35 to 40 years, therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, wherein the multiplier of 16 has been applied, therefore, there is no force in the second submission also. 7. Apart from above it is also relevant to mention that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal show that the income of deceased was Rs. 3852/- per month and total amount of compensation under all heads have been awarded as Rs. 5,33,056/-. The Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which appears to be just and reasonable. Whatever may be the mode or method adopted for assessing the compensation is to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. 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 5 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 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 6 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.” 9. In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK