1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4773/2008 {Krishan Kumar Jindal Versus Rajendra Kumar & Others} Date of Order :: 18th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Man Singh Chundawat for Mr. Jitendra Mitrucka for the appellant BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 123 days in filing the appeal as well as on merits of the appeal also. 2. So far as delay in filing the appeal is concerned, the appellant has explained the same in para 2, 3 and 4 of the application, which are reproduced as under:- “2. That the appellant were not aware with the fact that the claim petition has been decided on 11.9.2006 as they were not informed by their counsel. 3. That on 11.03.2007 when the appellant contacted his counsel than only he came to know about the passing of award dated 17.10.06. 4. That thereafter the appellant contacted Shri Jitendra Mitrucka Advocate on 30.3.07, who 2 immediately drafted the appeal and filed it on 09.04.07.” 3. The appellant is required to explain the each day's delay but aforesaid explanation makes it clear that appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal satisfactorily and in these circumstances I am not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and application is liable to be dismissed. 4. So far as merits of the case are concerned, the injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in motor accident took place on 3rd February, 2003 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 11th September, 2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur in claim case no. 238/2005, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded the total compensation of Rs. 3,92,656/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 23rd July, 2003 in his favour as under: Sr.No. Amount Under the head 1 Rs. 50,000/- For medicine, transportation and nutritious food 2 Rs. 50,000/- For physical pain and mental agony 3 Sr.No. Amount Under the head 3 Rs. 2,36,656/- Towards loss of salary for leave period 4 Rs. 6,000/- For damages to motor cycle 5 Rs. 50,000/- For permanent disability 5. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is on lower side looking to the percentage of permanent disability suffered by the appellant. He also contended that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of income is a meager sum, therefore, the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced in the present case. He also submits that the Tribunal committed an illegality in not applying the multiplier system for awarding the amount of compensation. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in the light of the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has considered the statement of AW-2 K.K. Jindal and also the documentary evidence placed on record. The leave certificate Ex. 13 and salary slip Ex. 14 and 15, all were taken into consideration and thereafter the Tribunal awarded the entire 4 amount of salary of 14 months i.e. Rs. 2,36,656/- as compensation in the case. The appellant also stated about damage to his motor cycle and as per surveyor report and other documentary evidence, the Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 6,000/- towards it. So far as inadequate amount of compensation under the head of loss of income is concerned it is relevant to mention that so far as period of leave is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded the entire amount of salary in favour of the appellant. The Tribunal has further observed that due to these injuries the salary of the appellant has not been reduced and he is getting the same salary, which he was getting prior to the date of accident, therefore, there is no loss of income in-fact to the appellant. However, Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded for 25.94% permanent disability and further Rs. 50,000/- under the head of physical pain and mental agony. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 50,000/- for medicines, transportation and nutritious food, therefore, total amount of Rs. 3,92,656/- has been awarded with interest @ 9% per annum. The Tribunal is required to pass an Award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which appears to be just, fair and 5 reasonable. Every method or mode adopted for assessing the amount of compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. 7. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the number and nature of injuries, the percentage of permanent disability and further that salary of the appellant has not been reduced for future period, I am of the view that amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and I do not find any force in any of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The finding of the learned Tribunal is based on evidence available on record and I do not find any justified reason to interfere with the same. 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 6 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 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 7 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, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. The appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits also. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK