// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.151/1997 Smt. Panchi Wife of late Shri Juwara and Others Versus Khalil Ahmad Son of Abdul Rahim and Others Date of Order ::: 04.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Sandeep Mathur, Counsel for appellants Shri N.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for Shri R.D. Rastogi, Counsel for respondents RSRTC #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation against the impugned Award dated 7th August, 1996, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.67,750/- in their favour as under:- S. No. Amount Under the Head 1. Rs.24,750/- Loss of Income for 2 years and 9 months from the date of accident i.e. 29th June, 1988 till 19th March, 1991 2. Rs.8,000/- For death of camel 3. Rs.5,000/- Damages for camel cart 4. Rs.30,000/- For loss of estate and medical expenses // 2 // Initially the injured Juwara filed an application in respect of injury sustained by him in an accident took place on 26th September, 1988, arising out of use of motor vehicle but subsequently he died after 2 years and 9 months i.e. on 19th March, 1991, therefore, his legal representatives filed an application for amendment in the claim application to the effect that Juwara died due to injuries sustained by him in the said accident; the said application was allowed and they were taken on the record. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on the record, recorded a finding that death of Juwara did not take place because of injury sustained by him in the accident in dispute, therefore, no compensation was awarded on that account; however, looking to the injuries sustained by him, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.67,750/-, as mentioned above. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not awarding the compensation on account of death of Juwara, who, according to him, died due to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident took place on 29th June, 1988. However, during the course of argument, he fairly and frankly admitted that there is no documentary evidence or the statement of the Doctor to the effect that he died due to the // 3 // injuries sustained by him in the accident took place on 29th June, 1988. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent referred the statement of AW- 4 Dr. V.D. Sharma, who, in his cross- examination, admitted that injuries sustained by the injured were of the nature which could have been treated; he further admitted that normally a person does not die due to mandible and clavicle fracture, which were sustained by Juwara in the present accident. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the evidence available on the record including the injury- report (Exhibit-4) and the statement of AW-4 Dr. V.D. Sharma and also the finding of the learned Tribunal, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal was fully justified in not awarding any compensation on account of death of Juwara, who did not die due to injury sustained by him in the accident took place on 29th June, 1988. Admittedly, he died after 2 years and 9 months i.e. on 19th March, 1991. So far as amount of compensation on account of injuries sustained by him is concerned, it is clear from the record that only Rs.750/- was pleaded as income of the injured and the same was accepted in toto by the Tribunal and on that basis a sum of Rs.24,750/- // 4 // has been awarded as loss of income from the date of accident till the date of death. The amount of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5,000/- has further been awarded on account of death of camel and cost of camel cart. So far as loss of estate and medical expenses are concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that although the claimants produced on the record the medical bill approximately amounting to Rs.1000/-, but the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- under this head. In view of the above discussion, I am satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just and reasonable, and no interference in the same 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 // 5 // 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 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 // 6 // 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 with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//