1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2530/2007 {Smt. Basanti Devi Versus Jagdish Prasad Sharma & Others} Date of Order :: 12th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. S.P. Singh for the appellant Mr. N.L. Verma for the respondents BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. 3. At the request of learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal was heard finally and is being disposed of. 4. The appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of her son Rajesh, who died in motor accident took place on 9th February, 2006 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 26th February, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur City, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 23th March, 2006 in her favour as under: 2 Sr. No. Amount Heads 1 Rs.3,84,000/- For loss of income 2 Rs.2,000/- For Funeral expenses 3 Rs. 6,000/- For deprivation of love and affection 4 Rs. 4,800/- For medical bills 5 Rs. 2000/- For deprivation of love and affection 6 Rs. 1000/- For transportation 7 Rs. 200/- For loss of shoes and cloths 5. The only submission of learned counsel for the appellant is about assessment of monthly income of the deceased. It is contended that as per statement of AW-1 Basanti Devi, the monthly income of deceased was proved as Rs. 6000/-, but learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not relying upon her statement in this regard and further committed an illegality in believing the statement of NAW-1, who stated that as per their investigation report, the monthly income of deceased was Rs. 3,000/-. He, therefore, contended that finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard is liable to be set-aside and monthly income of the deceased may be re-assessed and amount of compensation may be enhanced. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned award and contended that there is no documentary evidence in support of monthly income of the deceased, 3 whereas the non-claimants examined NAW-1 along- with investigation report, wherein as per investigation made in the case, the monthly income of the deceased was found to be Rs. 3,000/-, therefore, learned Tribunal was fully justified in believing the testimony of NAW-1 and this is not a fit case for interference in the finding of the learned Tribunal. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award particularly the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to quantum of compensation. So far as the age of the deceased and multiplier adopted in the case for assessing the compensation under the head of loss of income are concerned, the same have not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant further admits that there is no other evidence in the present case about monthly income of the deceased except the statement of AW-1 Basanti Devi, who is the mother of the deceased and is interested in getting the amount of compensation. Admittedly, no documentary evidence has been placed on record in the case to prove the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- or to corroborate the 4 testimony of AW-1 Basanti Devi in this regard. The opposite party examined NAW-1 in the case, who stated that he made an investigation about accident claim and found that monthly income of deceased was Rs. 3,000/-. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, I am of the view that the finding of the learned Tribunal about monthly income of the deceased is based on evidence, as discussed above and I do not find any illegality in it. 8. Apart-from above, it is relevant to mention that Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. Every mode or method adopted for assessing the amount of compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation, which is the pivotal consideration. 9. After considering the income and age of the deceased, I find that the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 5 Divisional Controller, KSRTC Versus Mahadeva Shetty and Another {(2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 197} has held 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. 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 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 to 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 6 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 be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a wind fall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate 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.” 11. In view of above discussion, I do not 7 find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK