// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4852/2008 Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh and Others Versus Sanjay Kumar (since deceased) through Smt. Sanjay Kumar & Others Date of Order ::: 11.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri B.L. Dhakar, Advocate, for Shri Jai Prakash Gupta, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The legal heirs of deceased Bhagwat Singh, who died in a motor-accident took place on 22nd February, 2001, have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 19th September, 2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track No.1), Beawar, District Ajmer, in Claim Case No.117/2005 (Old No.179/2001), whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,75,800 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 14th March, 2001, in their favour. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the total amount of // 2 // compensation awarded in the present case is a meager sum and cannot be said to be an adequate compensation, therefore, the same is liable to be enhanced. He further submits that in the claim petition the age of deceased was mentioned as 34 years, therefore, the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 17 in place of 16. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned Award may be modified and the amount of compensation may be enhanced. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in the light of finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has considered the statement of PW-1 Smt. Ramesh Kanwar Wife of deceased, who also died on 7th January, 2006, during the pendency of the claim application, who, in her statement, stated that the monthly income of her husband was Rs.5,000/-; however, his salary-certificate was not produced on the record; she further admitted that the deceased was not holding a permanent post of driver. The Tribunal observed that in the year 2001 the daily wage of temporary drivers in Roadways was Rs.70/- as per Minimum Wages Act and accordingly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2100/- or Rs.25,200/- per annum, and, after deducting 1/3rd amount out of it for personal expenses, the // 3 // Tribunal assessed the dependency amount as Rs.16,800/- per annum and, after applying the multiplier of 16, awarded a sum of Rs.2,68,800/- (Rupees two lac sixty-eight thousand eight hundred) towards loss of income. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants about wrong application of multiplier of 16 in place of 17 is concerned, it is relevant to mention that wife of the deceased has already died during the pendency of the claim petition and the claimants in the present case are old parents and children of the deceased. The children are entitled to get the amount of compensation only up-to the age of their attaining the maturity and the parents are entitled to get the amount of compensation as per their age. In both the situations, the proper multiplier in the present case would have been 8 only, however, the Tribunal in the present case has applied the multiplier of 16, which is on higher side and, therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier on lower side. The Tribunal has also awarded additional amount of compensation under other heads. The total amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just, fair and reasonable. // 4 // 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 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 // 5 // "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//