// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4915/2008 Smt. Ishrat Bano Widow of Mohammad Ishaq and Others Versus Gajanand Singh Son of Gopal Singh and Another Date of Order ::: 11.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Anoop Dhand, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The legal heirs of deceased Mohammad Ishaq have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of his death in a motor-accident took place on 9th August, 2005, and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 20th January, 2007 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, in Claim Case No.741/2005, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,98,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the claim application i.e. 3rd September, 2005, in their favour, as under:- // 2 // 1. Rs.4,08,000/- For loss of income 2. Rs.35,000/- For loss of consortium 3. Rs.15,000/- For deprivation of love and affection to claimant No.2 Mauzim 4. Rs.25,000/- For deprivation of love and affection to claimant No.3 Diba 5. Rs.10,000/- For deprivation of love and affection to claimants No.4 and 5 6. Rs.5,000/- For expenses incurred on last rites The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is about assessment of income of the deceased by the Tribunal. It is contended that, as per the salary- certificate (Exhibit-14), the monthly income of the deceased was proved as Rs.4,000/-, whereas the Tribunal wrongly assessed it as Rs.3,000/-, therefore, to that extent the finding of the learned Tribunal is liable to be modified and the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in the light of the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation. So far as the age of deceased and multiplier adopted in the present case are concerned, the same have not been disputed by // 3 // the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned Tribunal, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased, has considered the statement of AW-1 Ishrat Bano and the salary- certificate (Exhibit-14) of the deceased, wherein the monthly income of the deceased was stated/mentioned as Rs.4,000/-. The Tribunal observed that this certificate is on a simple paper and Shri Yunus, who issued it, was not examined in the case to prove it, therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the said salary- certificate. However, looking to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income as Rs.3,000/- and, after deducting 1/3rd amount out of it for personal expenses, determined the dependency amount as Rs.2,000/- per month and, on applying the multiplier of 17, awarded a sum of Rs.4,08,000/- towards loss of income; the Tribunal further awarded Rs.90,000/- under various other heads, as mentioned above; thus, it awarded total compensation of Rs.4,98,000/- in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal has also awarded interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of claim application. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in the light // 4 // of reasons assigned by the Tribunal for not relying upon the salary-certificate, which appear to be just and proper, I do not find any illegality in the impugned Award. Apart from the above, it is also relevant to mention that the Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 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 the pivotal consideration. The amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just, fair and reasonable in view of the age and income of the deceased. 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 // 5 // 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 "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 // 6 // 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 discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//