// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4850/2008 Munna Lal Son of Shri Nandram Versus Shri Sohan Singh Son of Shri Ladu Singh and Others Date of Order ::: 10.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Bhanu Prakash Verma, Advocate, for Shri Ratan Kaushik, Counsel for appellant #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The injured has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in a motor-accident occurred on 16th March, 2006 and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 20th January, 2007 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Ajmer, in MAC No.217/2006 (542/2006) whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.58,622/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim application up-to the date of realization in his favour as under:- // 2 // 1. Rs.4,000/- For four simple injuries 2. Rs.5,000/- For one grievous injury 3. Rs.5,000/- For one operation 4. Rs.9,500/- For 19 days during which he remained admitted in the hospital 5. Rs.10,122/- For medical bills 6. Rs.25,000/- For physical pain and mental agony and permanent disability The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal committed an illegality in not awarding any compensation under the head of loss of income. He contended that the appellant was 35 years of age, therefore, a reasonable amount of his income ought to have been assessed and thereafter the amount of compensation should have been awarded in the case. He, therefore, contended that the amount of compensation may be enhanced reasonably. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of finding recorded by the Tribunal in respect of quantum of compensation. The learned Tribunal has observed that so far as loss of // 3 // income is concerned, the appellant has not produced any satisfactory evidence and this fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments also. As per the injury-report, the appellant sustained four simple injuries and one grievous injury; as per the permanent- disability-certificate (Exhibit-14), he suffered 12% permanent disability. It is a settled law that the amount of compensation should neither be a meager amount nor it should be a bonanza. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Another – (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the Tribunal is required to pass an Award under Section 168 of the Act of 1988 which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view the nature and number of injuries sustained as well as the percentage of permanent disability suffered by the appellant, I am of the view that the total amount of compensation with interest awarded in the present case cannot be said to be a meager amount and I do not find any substance // 4 // in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, particularly when the appellant has failed to adduce any satisfactory evidence in respect of loss of income. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//