Raj Kumari v. Mahendra Singh & Ors.

Order

:: 12.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Pankaj Gupta, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The legal heirs of deceased Suresh Chand, who died in a motor-accident took place on 10th February, 2005, have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 27th September, 2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track) Dausa, in Claim Application No.83/2006, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,02,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 25th July, 2005, in their favour, as under:- // 2 // Rs.3,60,000/- For loss of income Rs.10,000/- For physical pain and mental agony to claimants Rs.10,000/- For loss of consortium to wife Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- For deprivation of love and affection to claimants No.2 & 4 For deprivation of love and affection to claimant No.5 Rs.2,000/- For funeral expenses

6. The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is about assessment of income of the deceased. His contention is that, as per the affidavit of the appellant

Smt. Rajkumari, the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- to Rs.6,500/- per month by running a tea-stall, therefore, the Tribunal committed an illegality in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. He, therefore, contended that to that extent the amount of compensation may be enhanced. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in the light of finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation. So far as age of deceased and multiplier adopted by the Tribunal for awarding compensation under the head of loss of income // 3 // are concerned, the same were not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. His only submission is about proper assessment of the income of the deceased. The appellant Smt. Rajkumari, in her affidavit, stated that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- to Rs.6,500/-, however, she, in her cross- examination, admitted that she has not placed on the record any certificate or documentary evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. She also admitted that she has not placed any license for running the tea-stall of her husband. In absence of any cogent documentary evidence with regard to monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the same as Rs.3,000/-. In my view, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in assessing the monthly income of the deceased in absence of any cogent documentary evidence in this regard and I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. 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 // 4 // 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 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 // 5 // 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 this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//