// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2375/2007 Manoj Kumar Son of Chhagan Lal Versus Kamal Mohan Son of Bhori Lal Saini and Others Date of Order ::: 10.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Pankaj Gupta, Counsel for appellant #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, vide its Award dated 16.03.2007, in Claim Case No.52/2005, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,40,000/-, in favour of the appellant for the injuries sustained and 41.5% permanent disability suffered by the appellant in an accident arising out of use of motor vehicle, which took place on 25th August, 2004. Being dissatisfied with the award, the appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant could not work for about one year due to the injuries but the learned Tribunal did not award any specific // 2 // amount of compensation for the said period. He further submits that the minimum wage at the relevant time was Rs.84/- per day, whereas the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.2160/- per month under the Minimum Wages Act. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned Award, particularly the finding of the Tribunal on the Issue No.2. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding one year period during which the appellant could not work is concerned, there is no specific evidence in support of it. The Tribunal has considered the discharge-certificate of the appellant issued from SMS Hospital, Jaipur, (Exhibit-12 to Exhibit-14), and recorded a finding that he remained admitted for about 30 days and awarded compensation of Rs.15000/- under this head at the rate of 500 per day. So far as minimum wages at the rate of Rs.84/- per day, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, is concerned, there is no evidence on the record to this effect that this was the minimum wage at the relevant time. Even today, the learned counsel for the appellant is unable to produce any Notification in support // 3 // of his contention. The learned Tribunal has assessed Rs.2160/- as monthly income of the deceased under Minimum Wages Act. In absence of any documentary evidence on the record contrary thereto regarding income of the deceased, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the finding of the learned Tribunal in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2160/- under the Minimum Wages Act. So far as the age of the appellant is concerned, the same is not in dispute and on the basis of it the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,82,865/- (2160x12x17 = 6,40,640 divided by 41.5% permanent disability). The learned Tribunal also awarded the amount of Rs.39,123/- towards medicines. Thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation under all heads to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- in favour of the appellant. The learned Tribunal is expected to pass an award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. After considering the age and income of the appellant, and looking to the permanent disability sustained by him, I find the amount of compensation awarded in the // 4 // present case to be just, fair and reasonable and no interference in the finding of the Tribunal is called for. 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. 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. // 5 // 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 in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//