1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.4489/2008 Manphool & Anr. V/s Munna Khan & Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 18th November,2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Vinay Mathur, for the appellants. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of death of Suresh who died in motor accident took place on 7.8.99 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 5.4.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim application i.e. 7.8.99 till the date of payment. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is inadequate and the same is liable to be enhanced. He contended that the Tribunal committed an illegality in deducting 1/3rd amount for personal expenses of the deceased. His second 2 submission is that looking to the age of appellants who are parents of the deceased, the multiplier 16 ought to have been applied. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, particularly; the finding of issue No.2 relating to quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has considered the statement of AW 1 Manphool whose statement is that the deceased was earning Rs.4000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month. However, no certificate in support of income of the deceased was placed on record. So far as the age of deceased is concerned, the same was pleaded as 18 years in the claim application but as per Ex. 5 which was the document placed by claimants themselves, he was only 14 years of age. The Tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 14 years on the basis of the Ex. 5. In absence of any documentary evidence in support of income of deceased, the Tribunal assessed his notional income as Rs.15,000/- per annum and applied the multiplier of 15 and after deducting 1/3rd amount on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the claimants for loss of income. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,62,000/-. 3 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 compensation has to be considered in the the back ground of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. After considering the age of the deceased, I am satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case, appears to be just and reasonable and I do not find any force in the contention of the leaned counsel for the appellants. The Tribunal was right in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of deceased and rightly applied the multiplier of 15. 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 non-arbitrariness. Para 15 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- 4 “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" 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).” 5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Bai v/s Charan Singh (1998(2) ACJ 848) , awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- wherein the age of the deceased boy was 20 years. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any force in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (N.K. Jain),J. Chauhan/