JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 1. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of Mahaboob Khan, who died in a motor-accident took place on 25th September, 2000, and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 6th April, 2005, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Claim Case No.772/2004, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.10,71,116/- in their favour. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants raised only one submission that the grossincome of the deceased was Rs.7,286/- per month, whereas the Tribunal, for the purpose of determining the dependency, took into consideration his net-salary of Rs.6,661/-, therefore, to that extent the Award may be modified and the compensation may be enhanced accordingly. 3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned Award, particularly the finding of the Tribunal in respect of Issue No.4 relating to quantum of compensation. 4. The income and age of the deceased and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal, have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. The deceased was 45 years of age, as per the salary-certificate (Exhibit-5) his gross-salary was Rs.7,286/- per month and the net-salary was Rs.6,661/- per month, looking to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13. It is relevant to mention that while determining the amount of compensation, the learned Tribunal increased the amount of net-salary of Rs.6,661/- by 50% and determined the dependency amount as Rs.9,991/- per month, and on that basis calculated the amount of compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha & Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 774 , held that there is no illegality in deducting the allowance and further that the claimants are entitled to be compensated on the basis of net salary. Para No.9 of the judgment is reproduced as under : "9. Lastly, it was submitted that the salary certificate shows that the salary of the deceased was Rs.8632. It was submitted that the High Court was wrong in taking the salary to be Rs.6642. It was submitted that the High Court was wrong in deducting the allowances and amounts paid towards LIC, society charges and HBA, etc. We are unable to accept this submission also. It was submitted that the High Court was wrong in taking the salary to be Rs.6642. It was submitted that the High Court was wrong in deducting the allowances and amounts paid towards LIC, society charges and HBA, etc. We are unable to accept this submission also. The claimants are entitled to be compensated for the loss suffered by them. The loss suffered by them is the amount which they would have been receiving at the time when the deceased was alive. There can be no doubt that the: dependents would only be receiving the net amount less ⅓rd for his personal expenses. The High Court was, therefore, right in so holding." 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty, 2003 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 415 : (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. 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. 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 ." 6. The deceased was getting gross-salary of Rs.7,286/- and his net-salary was Rs.6,661/- per month, but, as mentioned above, his net-salary was increased by 50% in the present case and accordingly the Tribunal determined the dependency amount as Rs.9,991/- and after applying the proper multiplier awarded Rs.10,39,116/- towards loss of income and Rs.32,000/- under other heads, as per the details mentioned in the impugned Award, thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.10,71,116/-. The amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just and reasonable, and I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned Award so as to interfere with the same. 7. The amount of compensation awarded in the present case appears to be just and reasonable, and I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned Award so as to interfere with the same. 7. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.Appeal Dismissed. *******