- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
(2.) The legal heirs of deceased Ram Kishan, who died in motor accident took place on 30th December, 2006, have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of his death and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 22nd April, 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sambharlakh, District Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded the total compensation of Rs. 4, 69, 000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 8th March, 2007 as under: Sr. No.Amount awardedHeads1Rs. 4, 32, 000/-For loss of income2Rs. 5000/-For loss of consortium to wife3Rs. 25, 000/-For deprivation of love and affection to claimants no. 2 to 64Rs. 5, 000/-For deprivation of love and affection to Dhanni Devi5Rs. 2000/-For funeral expenses The only submission of learned counsel for the appellant is about assessment of monthly income of the deceased. It is contended that monthly income of deceased was Rs. 7000/-, whereas the learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income as Rs. 3, 000/- only, which is illegal and finding of the learned Tribunal to that extent is liable to be set-aside. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned award, particularly the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has considered the statement of AW-1 Beela Devi and AW-3 Panchu Ram. AW-1 Beela Devi stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 7000/- per month from the agriculture and other works, whereas AW-3 Panchu Ram stated that deceased was earning Rs. Rs. 7000 to Rs. 8000/- per month from boring machine. However, both the witnesses have admitted that no documentary evidence in support of monthly income of the deceased has been placed on record. The Tribunal in absence of any documentary or cogent evidence on record, assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3, 000/-. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the finding of the learned Tribunal, I am of the view that learned Tribunal was fully justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3, 000/- in absence of any documentary or cogent evidence on record. The claimants did not produce any accounts books or profit and loss accounts or balance sheet of the business or the work, which was being done by the deceased. In these circumstances, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, and, in my view, the amount of compensation awarded in the present case looking to the age and income of the deceased is perfectly justified in the eye of law. The rate of interest awarded in the present case is also just and reasonable. In these circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in the finding of the learned Tribunal. Apart-from above, it is relevant to mention that Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. Every method or mode adopted for assessing the amount of compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC Versus Mahadeva Shetty and Another {(2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 197} has held 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. 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 as under: "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 to 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 be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a wind fall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate 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 nonarbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just." In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.;