// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.5052/2008 Sita Ram Son of late Shri Bhura Mal and Others Versus Mahadev Prasad Son of Govind Ram and Another Date of Order ::: 11.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ram Sharan Sharma, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The legal heirs of deceased Bhura, aged 70 years, have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of his death in motor-accident took place on 21st January, 2006 and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 9th April, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in MAC No.175/2006. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is a meager sum and the same is liable to be enhanced. I have considered the submission of the // 2 // learned counsel for the appellants in the light of findings of the learned Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute the age of the deceased i.e. 70 years and the multiplier of 5 adopted by the Tribunal in the present case; his only grievance was about assessment of the monthly income of the deceased. AW-1 Sita Ram, in his statement, stated that deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from the agriculture work etc., whereas the learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income as Rs.2400/- only. The learned counsel for the appellants admitted that no documentary evidence, in support of the monthly income of the deceased, has been placed on the record. In absence of any cogent and/or documentary evidence about monthly income of the deceased, who was 70 years of age, the learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income as Rs.2400/-, and, after deducting 1/3rd amount out of it admissible for personal expenses, determined the dependency as Rs.1600/- per month and consequently awarded the amount of compensation. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, I find that // 3 // in absence of any cogent documentary evidence on the record about monthly income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal was fully justified in assessing his income as Rs.2400/- per month. It is relevant to mention that the Tribunal has further awarded Rs.23,000/- under other heads, as per the details mentioned in the impugned Award. In these circumstances, I find that, looking to the age of the deceased, the amount of compensation of Rs.1,19,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, awarded in the present case is perfectly justified 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 reasonableness, and // 4 // 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 // 5 // 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//