1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1800/2002 {Mahesh Singh Chauhan Versus Shri Allaudeen & Others} Date of Order :: 12th November, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Shobhit Tiwari for the appellant Mr. Rahul Joshi for the respondent no.3 BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. The contesting respondents are represented by their counsel. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the arguments were heard in the appeal and the same is disposed of finally. 4. The injured appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injury sustained by him in a motor accident which took place on 3rd January, 1998 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 25th June, 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,46,000/- in his favour with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of 2 filing of the claim petition i.e. 28th April, 1998 till the date of realization. 5. The only submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that as per oral testimony of appellant, he was holding the post of Manager and was earning Rs. 7000/- per month, which should have been assessed his income and amount of compensation ought to have been determined on that basis after adopting the proper multiplier as per second schedule. He contended that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in awarding lumpsum amount as compensation for permanent disability and loss of income suffered by him. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that looking to the number and nature of injury and percentage of permanent disability, the amount of compensation awarded in the present case cannot be said to be a meager amount. The compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just and reasonable, therefore, no interference is required to be made in the impugned award. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned award and also the record of the Tribunal. The accident took place in the 3 year 1998. AW-2 Mahesh Singh in his statement recorded on 7th June, 2000 stated that he was getting monthly salary of Rs. 7000/- from the Transport Company. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant frankly admitted that no salary certificate or any other documentary evidence including income tax return have been placed on record to corroborate the oral testimony of AW- 2 Mahesh Singh with regard to monthly income. The employer of Mahesh Singh has also not been examined as witness to corroborate the oral testimony with regard to his income. The learned Tribunal while considering the issue no.4 relating to quantum of compensation has considered the statement of AW-2 Mahesh Singh, his injury report (Ex.4), x-ray report (Ex. 5) and looking to the number and nature of injuries, awarded Rs. 50,000/- for the same. The appellant was operated twice and under the head of physical pain and mental agony, awarded Rs. 15,000/-. The medical bills of Rs. 16,000/- were also produced and the same were allowed by the Tribunal. Rs. 5,000/- for nutritious diet and Rs. 10,000/- for transportation charges have also been awarded. Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded for loss of income and Rs. 40,000/- has 4 been awarded for 19.55% disability suffered by him, therefore, total amount of compensation of Rs. 1,46,000/- has been awarded in his favour. The Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which appears to be just and proper. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. After considering the nature and number of injuries and the age of the appellant, I find that amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just and reasonable and Tribunal has committed no illegality in passing the impugned award. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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” 5 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 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" 6 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.” 9. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK