// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1403/2006 Smt. Pushpa Wd/o Late Inder Singh and Others Versus Ramsingh Son of Shri V.S. Singh and Another 2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1409/2006 Smt. Bimla Widow of Late Rajendra Singh and Others Versus Ramsingh Son of Shri V.S. Singh and Another Date of Order ::: 12.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri M.L. Kumawat, Counsel for appellants in both the appeals #### By the Court:- The above two appeals, on behalf of claimant-appellants, for enhancement of the amount of compensation, are directed against the common impugned Award dated 14th December, 2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem-ka-Thana (District Sikar) in M.A.C. No.146/2004 and M.A.C. No.147/2004, and both the claim cases arose out of one accident, therefore, these two appeals are being heard and disposed of by this common order. Two persons, namely, Rajendra Singh and // 2 // Inder Singh, died in a motor-accident took place on 14th January, 2004, and their legal representatives filed two separate claim applications before the Tribunal for award of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,38,400/- in each case in favour of the claimants, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the income of the deceased properly. He contended that deceased Rajendra Singh was earning Rs.4,000/- per month, whereas the deceased Inder Singh was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, but the learned Tribunal assessed only Rs.2,400/- as monthly income of deceased- persons in both the cases, therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal to that extent may be set-aside and their income may be assessed as stated in the statements of the applicants' witnesses, and the amount of compensation may be enhanced accordingly. He also contended that the rate of interest awarded in the present matters is not proper, // 3 // therefore, the same may also be increased. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal, particularly its finding on Issue No.2 relating to quantum of compensation. The learned Tribunal, while considering the case of deceased Rajendra Singh in MAC No.146/2004, considered the statement of AW-2 Bimla Devi, who stated that her husband was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal assessed his income as Rs.2,400/- per month and, after deducting 1/3rd amount for his personal expenses, assessed the monthly dependency as Rs.1,600/-. After considering the evidence on the record, the learned Tribunal determined his age as 38 years and applied the multiplier of 17 and awarded Rs.3,26,400/- towards loss of income; Rs.10,000/- were further awarded for deprivation of love and affection and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses. So far as deceased Inder Singh is concerned, the learned Tribunal considered the statement of AW-1 Smt. Pushpa Devi, who stated that her husband was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal also assessed his income as Rs.2,400/- per month and, after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, // 4 // assessed the dependency amount as Rs.1,600/- per month and, keeping in view his age, applied the multiplier of 17, and awarded compensation of Rs.3,26,400/- under the head of loss of income; Rs.10,000/- were further awarded for deprivation of love and affection and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses. The learned Tribunal also awarded interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from 18.05.2004 in Case No.146/2004 and from 15.05.2004 in Case No.147/2004. So far as first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants about wrong assessment of income of the deceased-persons is concerned, I find that the learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased as stated by AW-2 Bimla Devi and AW-1 Smt. Pushpa Devi. The learned counsel is also unable to point out that the employer of deceased persons was examined in the case to prove even orally their respective income. In absence of any proper assistance by the learned counsel for the appellants by referring any cogent, oral or documentary evidence in respect of income of the deceased-persons, I do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of // 5 // the learned Tribunal with regard to assessment of the income of the deceased-persons in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The amount of income assessed by the learned Tribunal, looking to the job of deceased- persons, appears to be just and reasonable. In these circumstances, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding award of less interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum, which appears to be just and reasonable and no increase in it is called for. Apart from above, it is relevant to mention that the learned Tribunal is required to pass an Award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which appears to be just and reasonable. 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 // 6 // 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:- “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 // 7 // 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 discussion, I do not find any force in both the appeals and the same are hereby dismissed in limine. Since two appeals have been decided by this common order, the Registry is directed to place a copy of it in connected Appeal. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//