1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.4645/2008 Baldev Prasad Kumawat & Ors. V/s Mahendra Kumar & Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 25th November, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri M.C. Jain, for the 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 Sita Ram who died in motor accident which took place on 14.3.1994 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 27.11.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.459/94, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,67,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim application i.e. 31.5.1994, in their favour. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has committed an illegality in assessing the income of the deceased and also applying the proper multiplier for the purpose of calculating 2 the amount of compensation. It is contended that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3000/- to Rs.3500/-, whereas the learned Tribunal has assessed only Rs.2100/- per month. It is further argued that the age of the deceased was less than 30 years, therefore, the multiplier of 18 should have been applied in place of 15. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal, particularly; the finding of issue No.3 relating to quantum of compensation. There is no dispute that deceased Sitaram was un-married at the time of death. As per pleadings mentioned in the claim application, the deceased was 20 years of age. AW 1 - Baldeo Prasad also stated that the deceased was 20 years of age. The age of deceased in post mortem report, Ex 7, was mentioned as 30 years. The learned Tribunal after considering the statement of AW 1 – Baldeo Prasad, father of the deceased, the deceased was 20 years of age and also Ex. 7, post mortem report, wherein the age of the deceased was mentioned as 30 years recorded finding that the deceased was less than 30 years of age. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal observed that no documentary evidence has been placed on record in support of his income and further 3 that no salary certificate has been placed on record, assessed his monthly income as Rs.2100/-. The age of claimants i.e. parents was 43 and 45 years. So far as the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants about the age is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the deceased was un- married and the claimants were his parents, therefore, as per settled law, the age of parents is material and not the age of deceased. So far as the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the multiplier is applied on the basis of age of parents, where the deceased is un -married and not as per deceased. Therefore, looking to the age of parents in the present case, the learned Tribunal was fully justified in applying the multiplier of 15 as per Second Schedule appended to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, consequently the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,52,000/- (1400 x 12 x 15) towards loss of income, Rs.10,000/- for deprivation of love and affection, Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded the total compensation of Rs.2,67,000/-. The Tribunal is required to pass an award u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which appears to be just and reasonable. Every method or mode adopted for assessing the compensation has to be considered in the back ground of just compensation which is the pivotal 4 consideration. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the learned Tribunal was fully justified in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.2100/- per month and in applying the multiplier of 15 for the purpose of awarding the compensation and in these circumstances, I do not find any force in any of the contentions of the learned counsel for th appellants. The amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair 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, has observed that every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the back ground of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. The Apex Court in Mahadea Shetty's case (supra) has also held as under : “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 5 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).” 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/