Ajay Rastogi, J.
1. Instant appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs. 1,56,000 awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur 'Tribunal') vide award date 27.11.2000 in MACT Case No. 28/2000.
2. Claimants are widow and parents of Ramraj (deceased) aged 30 years, who was going on motor bike from Bajaria to his village Mainpura and when he reached near Bais Godam on Sawai Madhopur Dausa Road, a tata sumo' jeep No. RJ-14/ 2C/9102 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, met with an accident -as a result of which he died on 17.12.1999. As per claim petition, Ramraj was engaged in profession of agriculture and earning Rs. 5,000 (out of which Rs. 3,00 from agriculture profession and Rs. 2,000 from selling milk) but claimants did not produce any documentary evidence in support of their averments in respect of income of the deceased. However, this fact remained undisputed that he was an agriculturist and having some source of income from agriculture and by selling milk. As per evidence led on record, the Tribunal recorded finding that accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle and the deceased was not negligent in any manner. As regards compensation, the Tribunal took over all view of the matter and after taking note of age of deceased as 30 years, so also of his wife and parents, but without examining and arriving at the conclusion, as to what could be best prudent evidence to support claimants' assertion in respect of the income of deceased and what would be suitable multiplier to be adopted, considered proper to determine compensation of Rs. 1.25 lacs towards loss of income to claimant No. 1 (wife) and also awarded Rs. 10,000 each to father and mother of deceased towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000 towards mental agony and funeral expenses, besides Rs. 1,000 as costs and so also annual interest @ 12% from the date of claim petition till actual payment. Hence this appeal.
3. Mr. L.L. Gupta, Counsel for claimants, has urged that compensation was required to be determined in making first assessment of income of deceased on the basis of over-all evidence led by either parties on record and by taking suitable multiplier as per scheduled appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but the Tribunal erred in not doing so rather on its own discretion has awarded lump sum compensation which has no basis and requires interference by this Court.
4. Mr. Gupta further contends that the deceased as per post mortem report was 30 years of age and in the statement of Smt. Foranti (A.W. 1) during cross-examination it has come on record that claimants were having five bighas of irrigated land besides having buffaloes and as alleged by claimants in their claim petition, had earning from agriculture and by selling milk, and income from which is also exempted from tax but it can be held that the deceased had no source for livelihood of his family except from agriculture and selling milk. Even otherwise as per minimum wages fixed by State Government under its notification, an unskilled labourer in December, 1999, was paid a sum between Rs. 1,500-1,800 and once the deceased has additional source of income from other profession/vocation, even by ordinary prudence, it could not be less than Rs. 3,000 per month.
5. Per contra, Mrs. Sharda Pathak, Counsel for respondent Insurance Company, urged that in the absence of any documentary evidence in respect of the income, no assessment in true sense car} be made and the Tribunal after taking note of over all material on record, has considered it reasonably to award compensation which is in true spirit as per Section 168 of the Act and requires no interference by this Court. The Counsel in support of aforesaid contention relied upon decisions in Kerala S.R.T.C. v. Susama Thomas : AIR1994SC1631 and Tamil Nadu S.T. Corporation v. S. Rajapriya I (2005) ACC 476 (SC) : 2005 (2) TAC (SC) 305.
6. I have considered the contentions advanced by Counsel for either parties and with their assistance, perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal. While granting compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is required to be determined, which in turn appears to be just and reasonable and that can only be examined from material on record but no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur : AIR2003SC3696 , observed as under:
The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh 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 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 State Road Transport Corporation : AIR1998SC3191 .
7. It was also a case where income of deceased could not be proved on the basis of documentary evidence but the Tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs. 4,500 per month and no reason was indicated to arrive at this figure. But the Apex Court on the basis of material on record considered Rs. 3,000 per month as his income and accordingly computed just compensation for the family of deceased towards loss of income after deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses.
8. It is clear from a reading of the impugned award that there was no documentary evidence on record to prove about the income of deceased, except statement made by claimant Smt. Foranti (A.W. 1) before the Tribunal, and as per her statement (A.W. 1), five bighas of irrigated land were being harvested for two crops in a year, which was their source of livelihood besides having buffaloes, and which remained uncontroverted. Taking this material on record which may not ultimately go to determine actual income of the deceased but if it is examined from another angle then it cannot be ruled out that he had source of income for livelihood of his family from agricultural land and selling milk, which can be good attending circumstance to determine reasonable compensation apart from it, he was 30 years of age and his income would not have been frozen for all times to come but would have been reasonably enhanced, future prospects of advancement in life should also be noticed in terms of money to augment the multiplicand.
9. In the light of what has been discussed supra about just compensation, the income can be estimated in the absence of documentary evidence to justify estimation. In the absence of determination of income by the Tribunal, the matter in ordinary course was required to be remitted back for re-consideration but the fact that the deceased was 30 years of age and the accident is of December, 1999, remanding the matter back at this stage is not going to serve any purpose particularly when evidence recorded is already on record before me for consideration. After 1994 amendment in the schedule to the Act, with regard to non-earning members, for whom Rs. 15,000 per annum has been considered to be financial dependency of the family. However, taking into consideration over all conspectus of the material on record and other ancillary aspect, I consider Rs. 2,500 as monthly income of the deceased and after 1/3rd deduction towards his personal expenses, dependency of family comes to Rs. 1,750 per month and looking to the age of deceased, multiplier of 18 as per schedule to the Act will be appropriate to be adopted, compensation is accordingly determined to Rs. 3,78,000 towards loss of income qua dependency of the family. As regards compensation towards love, affection and consortium, the same has adequately been awarded and it does not require any interference. Judgment, on which reliance has been placed by Counsel for respondents are of no assistance in facts situation of present case.
10. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,53,000 (Rs. 4,09,000 (Rs. 3,78,000 (+) Rs. 31,000) minus Rs. 1,56,000 awarded by Tribunal) which shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till actual payment. Enhanced compensation with interest shall be deposited by Insurance Company through A/c payee Bank Draft before the Tribunal within one month. The Tribunal is further directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in monthly income scheme of Post Office for a term of six years in the name of wife-claimant who will be entitled to receive monthly interest on Post Office MIS account supra as well as full amount of MIS on its maturity. No order as to costs.