JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the appeal as well as on merits of the appeal also. 2. So far as the delay in filing the appeal is concerned, the only ground taken by the appellant is that counsel for the appellant could not count the days properly for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Court as such there is a delay in filing the appeal. Para 2 and 3 of the application are reproduced as under: "2. That the counsel for applicant-appellant could not count the days properly for filing appeal before the Hon'ble Court as such there is delay in filing appeal. 3. That delay in filing appeal is bonafide mistake and there was no intention of the counsel for delay in filing appeal, hence may kindly be condoned." 3. The only ground pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is that he could not count the days properly for filing the appeal. 4. One can understand if there is a delay of one, two or three days in counting the days properly but this ground is not available where there is a delay of 30 days in filing the appeal. In these circumstances, I am of the view that appellant has not made out any sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and, therefore, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have also examined the matter on merits. 6. The appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by her in motor accident took place on 30th August, 2000 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 22nd April, 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur in MACT Case No. 87/2001, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 12th March, 2001 in her favour as under: Sr. No. Amount Under the head 1 Rs. 75,000/- For physical pain and mental agony 2 Rs. 25,000/- For medicines, nutritious food etc. 3 Rs. 50,000/- For 26.44% permanent disability 7. 1,50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 12th March, 2001 in her favour as under: Sr. No. Amount Under the head 1 Rs. 75,000/- For physical pain and mental agony 2 Rs. 25,000/- For medicines, nutritious food etc. 3 Rs. 50,000/- For 26.44% permanent disability 7. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is a meager sum and cannot be said to be an adequate amount of compensation, therefore, the same is liable to be enhanced, whereas the learned counsel for the respondents contended that looking to the age of injured, her income and percentage of permanent disability, the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 8. I have examined the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties in the light of finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence while deciding issue no.4 relating to quantum of compensation. As per Ex. 97 - Injury Report, the appellant sustained 7 injuries. As per X-ray Report, Ex. 98, there were three fractures. She also remained admitted in hospital. As per permanent disability certificate Ex. 100, she suffered 26.44% permanent disability. She was 55 years of age. There was no cogent evidence for her monthly income, as pleaded in the claim application and stated in her statement before the Tribunal. However, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 75,000/- for physical pain and mental agony. The appellant furnished the medical bills of Rs. 16,215/-, but the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards medical bills and nutritious food also. Rs.50,000/- has further been awarded for permanent disability and loss of income. Thus, the total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded in the case. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another (2003) 7 SCC 197 has held that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another (2003) 7 SCC 197 has held 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. 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 as under: "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 to 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 be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a wind fall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate 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. 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." 10. In view of above discussion, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed and appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits also.Application and appeal dismissed. *******