// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.5244/2008 Smt. Narayani Devi Wife of Lichman Ram and Another Versus Rajesh Kumar S/o Mulla Ram and Others Date of Order ::: 18.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Anoop Dhand, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The parents of deceased Kailash have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of his death arising out of use of motor-vehicle and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 13th July, 2006 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, AND Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, in Claim Case No.600/2005, whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 26th February, 2003, in their favour. The only submission of the learned // 2 // counsel for the appellant is that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is towards lower side and the same is liable to be enhanced. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in the light of finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue No.2 relating to quantum of compensation. So far as the finding in respect of age of the deceased is concerned, the same has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on the record, has determined the age of the deceased as 13 years. The Tribunal, for the purpose of awarding the compensation, relied upon the judgment of this Court in Babulal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajashan & Anr. - 2006 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 154 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manju Devi & Others Vs. Musafir Paswan – (2005) (1) TAC 609, wherein this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded Rs.2,25,000/- as total compensation in the case of child death and, on the basis of the same principle, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- in the present case. The amount of compensation awarded in the present // 3 // case is entirely based on the judgment of this Court in Babulal's case (Supra) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manju Devi's case (Supra). In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the finding of the learned Tribunal and no interference in the same is called for. 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 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 // 4 // 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. 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 in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//