// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3601/2008 Smt. Kusum W/o Late Shri Satya Prakash and Others Versus Bhagwan Singh S/o Shri Panchu Singh and Others Date of Order ::: 07.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Jai Kishan Yogi, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This appeal, on behalf of the claimant- appellants, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against the impugned Award dated 12th May, 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.15,09,000/- in their favour with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of realization. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not taking into consideration the future prospects of the // 2 // deceased and, without increasing the dependency amount, passed an award of compensation. He further submits that the rate of interest awarded in the present case is at lower side which may also be enhanced. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned Award, particularly the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue No.4 relating to quantum of compensation. So far as the age and income of the deceased is concerned, the same has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants obviously for the reason that he was 'Hawaldar' in the Military and there was documentary evidence in support of age and income of the deceased. As per the birth date certificate, the deceased was 32 years 10 months and 14 days of age on the date of accident and, as per the salary-certificate, he was earning a sum of Rs.10,620/- per month at the relevant time. The Tribunal deducted one- third amount for his personal expenses and dependency was determined as Rs.7080. Looking to the age of deceased, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 as per the second schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. // 3 // So far as future prospects of the deceased is concerned, the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence of AW-1 Kusum Rawat, and AW-2 Bhopal Singh, and has observed that there is no evidence available on the record about future prospects of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has considered that for the purpose of considering future prospects the claimants were required to adduce evidence but in the present case no evidence has been adduced. The learned counsel for the appellants is unable to point out any evidence available on the record in this regard also. In these circumstances, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard and I do not find any illegality in the finding of the learned Tribunal. So far as increase in the rate of interest is concerned, I find that in the present scenario award of 7.5% interest per annum on the amount of compensation is absolutely justified and no interference in it is called for. The Tribunal is required to pass the Award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which appears to be just and reasonable; every method or mode adopted for assessing // 4 // compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation, which is pivotal consideration. After considering the age and income of the deceased, I find that the amount of compensation of Rs.15,09,000/- awarded in the present case cannot be said to be a meager amount and, in my view, this amount of compensation is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 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 “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 // 5 // 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 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. // 6 // Maharashtra SRTC (AIR 1998 SC 3191).” 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//