// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3237/2007 Chameli Widow of Bhagwana and Others Versus Jitendra Kumar Son of Kailash Chand Mahajan and Others Date of Order ::: 07.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Gaurav Gupta, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of Dharamveer, who died in a motor vehicle accident took place on 6th April, 2006. The Tribunal, vide its impugned Award dated 24th May, 2007, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,56,008/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim application till the date of realization. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is inadequate and the same may be enhanced. // 2 // I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned award particularly the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue No.2 relating to quantum of compensation. The deceased Dharamveer was working as Class IV employee/Helper and, as per the date of birth certificate (Exhibit-13), he was 39 years of age on the date of death; as per the salary certificate (Exhibit-14) and salary statement (Exhibit-15) he was drawing total monthly salary of Rs.5,773/-; the learned Tribunal determined his age as 39 years on the basis of documentary evidence and also assessed Rs.5,773/- as his monthly income. One-third amount was deducted on account of his personal expenses and dependency was determined as Rs.3,849/-. The multiplier of 16 was applied and total amount of Rs.7,39,008/- was awarded under the head of loss of income. The amount of Rs.15,000/- was further awarded for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, total compensation of Rs.7,56,008/- was awarded in favour of the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of realization. The Tribunal is required to pass the // 3 // Award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which appears to be just and reasonable; every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation, which is pivotal consideration. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly when the age and income of the deceased is not in dispute in the present case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal. The amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just and reasonable and no interference in it 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 // 4 // 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 "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" // 5 // 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 discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//