// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3543/2007 Smt. Raju Devi Wife of Late Shri Mukesh Chand Meena and Others Versus Gopal Lal Son of Shri Chhaju Ram and Another Date of Order ::: 03.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Sandeep Mathur, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This appeal, on behalf of the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation, is directed against the impugned Award dated 21st June, 2007, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,64,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 18th May, 2006. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in assessing the income of the deceased. It is contended that the deceased was doing the work of shuttering and // 2 // was skilled labour whereas the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day treating him as a labourer only. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue No.4, wherein the Tribunal observed that the claimants have pleaded the income of deceased at Rs.8000/- per month but no documentary evidence in support of it has been placed on the record. The learned counsel for the appellant also does not dispute that no documentary evidence showing the income of the deceased has been placed on the record. The matter was listed before this Court on 1st October, 2007 and the learned counsel for the appellant sought time to place on the record a copy of the Circular alleged to have been issued for skilled labourer about their per day wage but the same has not been placed on the record and even today the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he could not place it on the record as the same is not available. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day i.e. Rs.3000/- per month or Rs.36000/- per year. 1/3rd amount was deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased, therefore, Rs.24000/- per year was determined as dependency for the // 3 // purpose of awarding compensation. So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, the same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned Tribunal, looking to the age of the deceased, applied the multiplier of 18 and awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,32,000/- towards loss of income. The Tribunal further awarded compensation of Rs.32,000/- under other heads and thus awarded Rs.4,64,000/- as total compensation to the claimant-appellants. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, I find that, in absence of any documentary evidence on the record, the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of the income of the deceased appears to be just and reasonable and I do not find any illegality or perversity in 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 // 4 // 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 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 // 5 // 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//