JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant-claimant feeling dissatisfied with impugned judgment and award dated 5th of June, 2018, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh, District Churu (for short, ‘learned Tribunal), has laid this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’). The appellant has craved for enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal on various counts on account of injuries suffered by him in an accident. 2. Brief facts are that on 19th of February, 2010 at about 1:30 PM when appellant Dalip Singh was on his way riding a motorcycle near Mahendra Tractor Agency, a Pickup bearing No. RJ-10-GG- 2331, coming from opposite direction, driven rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle. Due to the said accident, appellant sustained grievious and simple injuries. A report of the said accident was lodged at Police Station, Rajgarh and after investigation, chargesheet against the driver of pickup was filed in the concerned Court. Appellant, in the claim petition, under different heads, in all claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.14,19,481/- from respondents. 3. The claim petition was contested by insurer respondent No.1 denying most of the averments of claim petition in toto. It was the case of insurer that accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle but on account of appellant’s own negligence. It was further case of the insurer that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and said vehicle was not used under the employment of its owner as such insurer is not liable to pay compensation. By narrating all these facts, the insurer pleaded for rejection of the claim petition. 4. Respondents No.2 & 3 also filed written statements. While admitting the occurrence of accident, both of them denied other averments and prayed for dismissal of claim petition. 5. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings, settled four issues for determination. To substantiate the claim, from the side of appellant-claimant Dalip Singh AW1 appeared in the witness box and also examined one more witness Gyan Prakash AW2 and exhibited 88 documents. No evidence was produced on behalf of respondents either oral or documentary in support of their defence. 6. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings, settled four issues for determination. To substantiate the claim, from the side of appellant-claimant Dalip Singh AW1 appeared in the witness box and also examined one more witness Gyan Prakash AW2 and exhibited 88 documents. No evidence was produced on behalf of respondents either oral or documentary in support of their defence. 6. The learned Tribunal, after hearing rival parties, partly allowed the claim petition and declared appellant entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,74,600/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition 7. Espousing appellant’s cause for enhancement of compensation, it is submitted by learned counsel that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of income during which the appellant remained hospitalized and has not awarded compensation under some other heads as such compensation amount requires enhancement. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment & award. 9. Upon perusal of impugned judgment and award, in my opinion, learned Tribunal, has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence. The learned Tribunal has assessed just and reasonable compensation, which cannot be said to be inadequate calling for any enhancement in the factual backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case more particularly in view of the fact that the claimant-appellant has failed to prove the injury suffered by him by cogent evidence. The learned Tribunal, upon examining the documents noticed that no injury report is produced by the appellant and relevant treatment documents are not inspiring confidence without evidence of the treating doctor. However, despite that learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for the medical bills produced by the appellant. Therefore, I am not impressed by the submissions of learned counsel that learned Tribunal has committed manifest error or illegality in assessing the quantum of compensation. In view thereof, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award warranting interference by this Court. 10. In a motor accident claim cases, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, what is important is that compensation awarded should be just and proper in the facts and circumstance of each case. It is neither a bounty nor charity. The Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Anr. 10. In a motor accident claim cases, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, what is important is that compensation awarded should be just and proper in the facts and circumstance of each case. It is neither a bounty nor charity. The Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Anr. [(2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 197] has observed that every method or mode adopted for assessing the compensation has to be considered in the background of just compensation which is the pivotal consideration. 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”. 11. Likewise, Supreme Court, in the matter of Sarla Verma V/s DTC [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], held as under: 16. ..."Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profits. 12. In totality, the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is just and reasonable in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, satisfying the parameters envisaged under Section 168 of the Act, which requires no interference. 13. Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.