// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3947/2008 Mohammad Shabbir Son of Basir Khan and Another Versus Mohammad Rafiq Son of Mazeed Khan and Others Date of Order ::: 17.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri A.N. Khan, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of their son Nadeem, who died in a motor-accident took place on 23rd March, 2003 and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 28th September, 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Jhunjhunu, in Claim Case No.176/2003, whereby the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- in their favour. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is inadequate and the same is liable to be // 2 // enhanced. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned Award, particularly the finding of Issue No.4 relating to quantum of compensation. As per Exhibit-4, the postmortem-report, the deceased was 13 years of age. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants also. The deceased was a non- earning member, therefore, the Tribunal assessed his notional income as per second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act as Rs.15,000/- and, after deducting 1/3rd amount for personal expenses, determined the dependency of Rs.10,000/- per year. Looking to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 as per the Second Schedule appended with the Act of 1988 and awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of income; the Tribunal further awarded Rs.10,000/- for deprivation of love and affection and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses; thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of rs.1,62,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application i.e. 30.04.2003 till two months if the amount is received within two months and if // 3 // the amount of compensation is not paid within that period then thereafter at the rate of 9% per annum. The Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Act of 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 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).” 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. // 5 // After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the age of the deceased boy, I find that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is 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//