JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Injured-claimant has preferred this appeal against the impugned Award dated 23rd February, 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, for enhancement of amount of compensation. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. He further contended that the injured sustained 6% permanent disability but no amount of compensation has been awarded under this head. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and also examined the impugned Judgment, particularly the finding of the Tribunal in respect of Issues No.2 and 4. 5. The Tribunal has referred that the claimant has not placed on the record any documentary evidence or certificate of any Doctor by whom treatment was given. Exhibit-145 is the certificate of permanent disability wherein 6% permanent disability has been shown. Further on the basis of Photo copy of the M.L.R., the Doctor has reported fracture on his left shoulder, but the M.L.R. was not annexed with the claim application. The injured sustained six injuries and all were found to be simple in nature. No X-ray report or X-ray plate was placed on the record in respect of head injury. The basis on which 6% permanent disability was shown, has not been placed on the record. The claimants furnished the medicines bills Exhibit-141 to Exhibit-144 for Rs.800/- which has been allowed by the Tribunal. 6. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- as lump sum amount in favour of the claimant. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the said finding of the Tribunal. 8. 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. 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 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. 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 )." 9. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the finding of the Tribunal so as to interfere with the same. 10. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******