1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4546/2008 {Rajendra Versus Aljodevis & Others} Date of Order :: 19th November, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. B.L. Dhakad for the appellant BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which took place on 21st April, 2005 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 3rd July, 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Beawar, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 77000/- as under: - Rs. 38,250/- For 15% permanent disability - Rs. 10,000/- For physical pain and mental agony - Rs.3500/- For expenses incurred in the hospital for the period he remained admitted - Rs. 22,250/- For medical bills 2 - Rs. 3000/- For nutritious food 3. The only submission of learned counsel for the appellant is in respect of amount of Rs. 38,250/- awarded for 15% permanent disability and for not assessing the income of the appellant properly on the basis of contents mentioned in the claim application. His submission is that he pleaded his monthly income @ Rs. 3000/- in the claim application, whereas the Tribunal assessed his annual income of Rs. 15,000/- only, therefore, the impugned award of the Tribunal may be modified and amount of compensation may be enhanced accordingly. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned award particularly the finding on issue no. 2 and 5 relating to quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has observed that claimant mentioned in his claim application that his monthly income was Rs. 3000/-, but in his oral testimony before the Tribunal he stated that his monthly income was Rs. 2000/-. He also admitted that he was a student and studying. There was no specific source of income. No documentary evidence was placed on 3 record to show his monthly income, as stated in the claim application or in the statement and in absence of it, the learned Tribunal assessed the notional income of the appellant as non earning member as Rs. 15000/- per annum and on the basis of 15% permanent disability awarded the amount of compensation after applying the multiplier of 17 in view of his age in between 20 to 25 years. So far as age of appellant and multiplier used in the present case is concerned, the same has not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant also. Admittedly, there was no documentary evidence in support of monthly income of the appellant and in absence of it, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in assessing the notional income of the appellant as Rs. 15000/- per annum being non earning member. The finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard is absolutely justified and I do not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. 5. 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. 4 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” 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 5 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 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.” 6. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK 6