JUDGMENT 1. - Admit. Shri Saurabh Purohit appears for the respondent No.4. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The legal representatives of deceased Bhag Singh have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in respect of death of Bhag Singh, who died in an accident took place on 24th June, 1995 arising out of use of motor vehicle, against the impugned order dated 22nd January, 2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,99,000/- as under:- S.No. Amount Under the Head 1. Rs. 3,84,000/- For loss of Income 2. Rs.10,000/- For deprivation of love and affection etc. 3. Rs.5,000/- For funeral expenses etc. 4. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/-, as stated by his wife AW-1 Jasbeer Kaur, particularly when there was no evidence in rebuttal by opposite party. So far as age of deceased and multiplier applied are concerned, the same have not been disputed by him. 5. The learned counsel for respondents contended that there was no documentary evidence available on the record to prove the income of the deceased, therefore, there is no illegality in the finding of the learned Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month; the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal particularly the finding in respect of Issue No.3 relating to quantum of compensation. 7. There is no dispute in between both the parties with regard to the age of deceased and multiplier applied by the Tribunal. The only question is as to what was the income of Bhag Singh at the time of his accident. AW-1 Jasbeer Kaur, in her statement, stated that he was truck driver and earning Rs. 5000/- per month. Rs. 2400/- was his salary and he was getting Rs. 30/- per day as allowance. The only question is as to what was the income of Bhag Singh at the time of his accident. AW-1 Jasbeer Kaur, in her statement, stated that he was truck driver and earning Rs. 5000/- per month. Rs. 2400/- was his salary and he was getting Rs. 30/- per day as allowance. Admittedly, the salary certificate has not been placed on the record nor the employer of the deceased was examined in the case to prove the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. The matter relates to the year 1995. 8. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that in absence of any documentary evidence on the record, and after appreciating other evidence on the record, the learned Tribunal was fully justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-, and I do not find any illegality in the said finding. Looking to the nature of job of the deceased and his income and age, the amount of Rs.3,99,000/- cannot be said to be inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. 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. 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. 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 it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC ( AIR 1998 SC 3191 ) ." 10. 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.Appeal Dismissed. *******