// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2448/2008 Ramesh Chand S/o Devi Singh & Another Versus Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Date of Order ::: 18.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Himmat Singh Bikarwar, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of their son Dharamveer Singh, who died in a motor-accident took place on 9th August, 2006 and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 31st January, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.1), Bharatpur in MAC No.146/2007, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- in their favour. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal committed an illegality in assessing the monthly income of the deceased, as according to him there was // 2 // evidence of AW-3, who stated that deceased was serving in Sharda Tent House, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur and was getting monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-. He alternatively contended that even if in absence of any salary certificate issued from Sharda Tent House, at-least minimum wage ought to have been considered by the Tribunal while assessing the monthly income of the deceased or the dependency amount for the purpose of awarding the compensation. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned Award, particularly the finding of Issue No.2 relating to quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has considered the statement of AW-3, who stated that the deceased was 20 years of age and serving in Sharda Tent House, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur. The Tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 18 years on the basis of Exhibit-9, the postmortem- report, the documents produced by the claimants. As per the oral and other documentary evidence, it was stated that the deceased was 20 years of age. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute that no salary-certificate showing the monthly income of the deceased was placed on the record. He also did not dispute that any employer of the deceased was not examined in the case. No person // 3 // from Sharda Tent House came in the witness-box to prove the income of the deceased. In absence of any documentary evidence with respect to income of the deceased or any other cogent and reliable evidence, the learned Tribunal assessed his notional income as Rs.15,000/- per annum treating him as non-earning member, and, after deducting 1/3rd out of it, determined the dependency as Rs.10,000/- per year and in view of the age of the parents, applied the multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of income. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.20,000/- for deprivation of love and affection to the parents and further Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses; thus, the Tribunal awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal has also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim application till the date of payment. The Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which appears to be just and reasonable. 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 // 4 // 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:- “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 // 5 // 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 (AIR 1998 SC 3191).” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Bai Vs. Charan Singh , 1998 (2) ACJ 848 awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in the case of death of a boy of 20 years of age. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//