1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.2042/2007 Kumari Devli v/s Sharwan & Anr. Date of Judgment ::: 11th November,2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ram Singh Bhati, for the appellant. Shri K.N. Tiwari on behalf of Shri Satyendra Sharma, for the respondents. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. The contesting respondents are represented by their counsel. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the case is heard finally. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The injured appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of the injury sustained by her in the motor accident took place on 20.1.2006 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 27.11.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.5,08,650/- in her favour. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that right leg of the appellant was 2 amputated and she is only 10 years of age, therefore, looking to the nature of injury, permanent disability and her age, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not proper and the same may be enhanced. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the total amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable and no interference in it, is required. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal while discussing the issue No.3 relating to quantum of compensation has considered the statement of AW 1 Hanuman Sahai the father of injured who stated that her daughter is 10 years old, he spent Rs.70,000/- on transportation and treatment of her right leg which has been amputated and she is fully depended on him. Injury report Ex 7 was placed on record, according to which the appellant sustained 4 injuries. Ex 8 is the x- ray report showing amputation of right leg upto thigh. The injury No.2 was shown as grievous in nature. Ex 13 is the permanent disability certificate wherein 90% permanent disability has been shown. The medical bills Ex. 15 to 86 have been placed on record to prove the medical expenses. Although the injured was not earning 3 anything but for the purpose of awarding the compensation, the learned Tribunal assessed her income as Rs.25,000/- per year on the basis of the Minimum Wage Act. Although her age was 10 years and as per Second Schedule appended in section 163-A of the M.V. Act, 1988, the multiplier of 15 is prescribed for the victim upto the age of 15 years but in the present case, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and awarded a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation towards loss of income. The Tribunal further awarded compensation as under; Rs.6,050/- for medical expenses as per Ex 15 to 86, Rs.15,000/- for loss of income to parents for the period they attended their daughter during her treatment; Rs.10,000/- for transportation charges and other expenses in the hospital, Rs.12,000/- for physical pain, mental agony and nutritious food, Rs.15,000/- has further been awarded under general damages, Thus, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.5,08,650/-. The Tribunal is required to pass an award under section 168 of the M.V. Act 1988, which appears to be just and reasonable. In fact, the 4 tribunal has assessed more income of the injured and wrongly applied the multiplier of 18 in place of 15. However, there is no cross appeal or cross objection in the matter, therefore, I do not want to reduce the same. In any case, I am of the view that the amount of compensation awarded in the case cannot be said to be a megre or lesser amount so as to enhance the same. 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:- “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. 5 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).” In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.K. Jain), J. Chauhan/