Narendra Kumar Jain, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned Award dated 29.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 & Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, in Accident Claim No. 174/2005. The learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 11,77,664/- in favour of the appellants, with interest at the rate of 6.25% per annum from the date of filing of the application i.e. 16th July, 2004, as under:
1. Rs. 11,11,664/- For loss of income2. Rs. 20,000/- For loss of consortium3. Rs. 20,000/- For Loss of love and affection to the applicant'sNo. 2 and 34. Rs. 20,000/- For loss of love and affection to parents5. Rs. 5,000/- For funeral expenses6. Rs. 1,000/- For transportation etc.
2. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned Award.
3. The only grievance of the learned Counsel for the claimant-appellants is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not considering the future prospects of the deceased while calculating the amount of compensation, particularly while calculating the amount of compensation under the head of loss of income.
4. The learned Tribunal, while considering the Issue No. 2 relating to quantum of compensation, observed that deceased was a Teacher and, as per his salary-certificate (Exhibit56), he was drawing Rs. 5,150/- towards monthly salary and Rs. 3034/- towards deamess allowance, therefore, his total monthly salary was Rs. 8,174/-, which comes to Rs. 98,088/- per year; and after deducting 1/3rd amount there from for his personal expenses, the learned Tribunal assessed the yearly dependency at Rs. 65,392/-. As per Exhibit-56 the deceased was 30 years of age at the relevant time and, keeping in view his age, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 and awarded Rs. 11,11,664/- (65392 x 17) under the head of loss of Income. Rs. 66,000/- were further awarded under other heads, as mentioned above.
5. So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants about future prospects is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the learned Tribunal under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is required to pass an Award which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v. Jashuben and Ors. : AIR2008SC1734 , held that post-death revision of pay scale Is Irrelevant; only relevant factor Is Income of the deceased at the time of accident, future prospect should be based on some sound legal principles. Para Nos. 13 and 14 of the Judgment are reproduced as under:
13. It is not a case where, as on the date of death, the salary of the deceased was revised with retrospective effect from 1994. Salary would be revised or not was not known at that part of time. Only because such salary was revised at a later point of time, the same by itself would not have been a factor which could have been taken into consideration for determinating the amount of compensation. The Tribunal, therefore, committed a serious illegality in taking into consideration the latter aspect.
14. The amount of compensation indisputably should be determined having regard to the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by reason of the death of the victim. It was necessary to consider the earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident. Of course, further (sic future) prospect is not out of bound for such consideration. But the same should be founded on some legal principle.
6. The above principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court says that income of the deceased-at the time of accident is relevant and future prospects should be based on some sound principles. The future prospects also require some evidence. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not pointed out any evidence in respect of future prospect of the deceased and in absence of it the same was rightly not considered by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The amount of compensation awarded in the case is just, fair and reasonable and no Interference in it is called for.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty : AIR2003SC4172 , 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 weighted 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 : AIR1998SC3191 .
8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.