// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3861/2008 Smt. Suman Devi W/o late Shri Shivjiram Meena and Others Versus Antriksh Mathur S/o Shri Vikrant Mathur and Another Date of Order ::: 04.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Man Singh Chundawat, Advocate, for Shri Virendra Agrawal, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the impugned Award dated 04.07.2008, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.13,07,000/- in their favour with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 17th October, 2005. The only argument urged on behalf of the appellants is that the Tribunal committed an illegality in not taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased. He contended that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.5,935/-, as per his salary certificate // 2 // (Exhibit-19), which comes to Rs.71,220/- per annum, but the Tribunal only increased it to Rs.1,06,830/- per year in place of double of the salary for the purpose of determining the loss of income. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue No.4 relating to quantum of compensation awarded in the present case. Deceased Shivjiram, aged about 27 years, died in the present accident arising out of use of motor vehicle. He was holding the post of Lower Division Clerk in Small Savings Department. The Tribunal considered the future prospects of the deceased and determined his annual income as Rs.1,06,830/- and, after deducting 1/3rd amount out of it for his personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 18 as per the second schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded a total sum of Rs.12,81,960/-. The Tribunal further awarded the amount of compensation under the head of love and affection and loss of consortium etc. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.13,07,000/- has been awarded in the present matter. The Tribunal is required to pass the Award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which appears to be “just” in the facts and // 3 // circumstances of each case. The age and income of the deceased have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The question as to what would be “just” compensation, is a vexed question. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the income and age of the deceased, I find that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just and reasonable. 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 // 4 // 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 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 // 5 // find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//