1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.4954/2008 Munni Devi & Ors. V/s Omi & Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 5th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri J.P. Gupta on behalf of Shri Bipin Gupta, for the appellants. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of death of Brijendra who died in motor accident took place on 24.11.2004 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 28.2.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bharatpur, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.341/2006, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,44,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim application i.e. 15.3.2005 till the date of payment, in their favour as under :- Rs.3,12,000/- for loss of income, Rs.15,000/- for loss of 2 consortium to wife, Rs.12,000/- for deprivation of love & affection to 4 children, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the monthly income of deceased properly. It is contended that in the claim application, it was pleaded that monthly income of the deceased was Rs.8,000/- per month, whereas the Tribunal assessed it as Rs.3,000/- per month only which was not proper. Therefore, to that extent, the award of the Tribunal be modified and the amount of compensation may be enhanced accordingly. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award, particularly; the finding of the Tribunal relating to quantum of compensation. The Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation considered the statement of AW 1 Munni Devi who stated that the monthly income of her husband was Rs.8,000/- from Kirana shop. However, she has admitted that no accounts of the shop, have been placed on 3 record before the Tribunal and there is no other documentary evidence also, to support her statement with regard to the monthly income of the deceased nor the reasons have been disclosed for with-holding the accounts-books of the shop of the deceased. In absence of any documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount out of which for personal expenses, determined the dependency amount as Rs.2,000/- per month. The age of the deceased and multiplier adopted by the Tribunal have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. The Tribunal has not committed any illegality in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- in absence of any documentary evidence and in these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award or in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. It is settled that the amount of compensation should neither be a meager amount nor it should be a bonanza. After considering the income of the deceased and the age of the deceased, I find that the amount of compensation of 4 Rs.3,44,000/- with interest awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it, 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 5 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 discussions, I do not find any merit in the appeal and 6 the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Chauhan/