1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.1865/2007 Mahendra Singh & Anr. v/s Jagdish Singh & Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 19th November,2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Shailender Balwada, for the appellants. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of death of their son Sanwar Mal who died in motor accident took place on 30.6.2004 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 17.1.2007 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,54,000/- in their favour as under :- Rs.2,08,000/- for loss of income, Rs.40,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.1000/- for transportation charges. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the monthly income of the 2 deceased was Rs.5,000/- from the business and agricultural but the same was not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal and his income was assessed only at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month, therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard, is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. He, therefore, prayed that the finding of the learned Tribunal to that extent, be set aside / modified and the amount of compensation be enhanced. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned award, particularly; the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of issue No.2 relating to quantum of compensation. The age of the deceased i.e. 18 years has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the learned Tribunal has referred the statement of AW 1, Mahendra Singh, father of the deceased who stated that his son Sanwar Mal was a student of Class-XIth and was an intelligent boy and was getting scholarship of Rs.1,000/- per month. He was also doing the work of agricultural. He was unmarried. Learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute that no documentary evidence in support of monthly income of the deceased was placed on record, Normally, for un-earning member, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is assessed as the 3 annual income as per Second Schedule appended that section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but in the present case, the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2000/- i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum and in view of the age of the parents, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13, which has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants also, and consequently, allowed a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- (Rs.24,000 - 1/3 = 16,000 x 13) towards loss of income. Learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.40,000/- towards deprivation of love and affection, Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.1000/- for transportation charges. Even as per statement of AW 1 Mahendra Singh, father of deceased, the deceased was 18 years of age and was the student of Class-XIth. No documentary evidence in support of his monthly income, has been placed on record. It appears that Rs.5000/- monthly income of the deceased has been pleaded only to get more award of compensation. In my view, the learned Tribunal was fully justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased in absence of any documentary evidence and I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. 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 4 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 "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 5 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. (N.K. Jain),J. Chauhan/