// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.5255/2008 Murari Lal Son of Prasadi Lal Gupta and Others Versus Rajesh Morwani Son of Lal Chand Morwani and Others Date of Order ::: 18.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri B.L. Dhakar, Advocate, for Shri Jai Prakash Gupta, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of Ashok Gupta, who died in a motor-accident took place on 2nd June, 2002 and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 17th January, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar, in Claim Application No.479/2002, whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,01,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 1st July, 2002, in their favour. The only submission of the learned // 2 // counsel for the appellants is about assessment of the income of the deceased. It is contended that the monthly income of the deceased was seven to eight thousand rupees whereas the Tribunal wrongly assessed it as Rs.3,500/- per month, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal to that extent is liable to be set-aside and the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in the light of finding of the learned Tribunal relating to quantum of compensation. So far as the age of the deceased and multiplier adopted by the Tribunal for assessing the amount of compensation are concerned, the same have not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants. The only submission in the present case is about the assessment of the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has considered the statement of AW-1 Manorma Wife of the deceased, who, in her statement, stated that the monthly income of her husband was seven to eight thousand rupees, however, no documentary evidence, in support of the monthly income of the deceased, was placed on the record. This fact has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the // 3 // appellants during the course of arguments. The learned Tribunal, in absence of any documentary evidence in support of the monthly income of the deceased, assessed his monthly income as Rs.3,500/-, and, after deducting 1/3rd amount out of it for his personal expenses, assessed the dependency amount as Rs.28,000/- per annum and, after applying the multiplier of 13 as per his age, awarded a sum of Rs.3,64,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of income. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.37,000/- under other heads as compensation as per the details mentioned in the impugned Award. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal was fully justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased in absence of any cogent documentary evidence in support of the monthly income of the deceased. The only evidence in the present case about it is the oral statement of AW-1 Manorma, who is very much interested in getting more amount of compensation. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the finding of the learned Tribunal about monthly income of the deceased is perfectly justified and no interference in it is called for. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional // 4 // 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. 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 // 5 // 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 discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//