This is really an unfortunate and pitiable case where the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,500 only and a cost of Rs.500 with regard to the death of a lady aged about 60 years. That amount was also not awarded against the insurance company, but against the owner of the scooter. The only ground for awarding this 2,500 is that the deceased was a daily rated worker and the Tribunal found as if there is no value of life of the daily rated workers. 2. The law is settled by a catena of decisions where it has been pointed out that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should not give Award on the higher side making a claim before the Tribunal a lottery or a jackpot, but at the same time, it has been consistently held that there is no justification for a Tribunal to be niggardly and/or to display an attitude of parsimony. 3. A claim petition was filed in the year 1991 before the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Dhubri and that was registered as MAC No. 29 of 1991. It was stated therein that one Manik Mod Bewa aged about 60 years, a daily rate worker doing domestic work having an earning of Rs.650 PM was dashed by a scooter on 12.1.1991 at 3 PM and accordingly Golokganj PS Case No.10/91 was registered under section 279/304AIPC. The vehicle in question, ie scooter was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd, Jalpaiguri Branch. An amount of Rs.2 lakhs was claimed as the compensation. The owner filed a written statement and disputed the quantum of amount, but at the same time admitted the accident and it was further admitted that the lady dies in the hospital on the same day. No written statement was filed on behalf of the insurance company. 4. Before the Tribunal witnesses were examined and it was found by the Tribunal that the scooter was driven by a person having a valid driving licence. The learned Tribunal by award dated 3.6.1993 came to the finding regarding quantum of compensation in deciding issue No. 4 and he fixed the amount at Rs. 2,500 and a cost of Rs.500. 5. The deceased was survived by four sons and two daughters. Section 168 provides that the award determining the amount of compensation should be just (emphasis supplied). 6. 2,500 and a cost of Rs.500. 5. The deceased was survived by four sons and two daughters. Section 168 provides that the award determining the amount of compensation should be just (emphasis supplied). 6. In fixing the amount of compensation in accident cases there is bound to be some element of arbitrariness because after following certain salient features no doubt, the matter would generally be left to the Tribunal to take a reasonable view of the facts and come to fix the quantum of compensation. The section provides for determining the amount of compensation which appears to the Tribunal to be just and not perfect. The criteria for determining the compensation are not laid down specifically in the Act, but the Tribunal is to make an Award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just. The word just in the section connotes reasonableness, something conforming to rectitude and justice. Something equitable and fair. The provision in the other Act may furnish a broad outline, but are not binding on the Tribunal. Just compensation is one which does not come as source of profit to the claimant on account of the accident. There can be no confirmed rule for measuring the future of human life and measuring of damages cannot be raised on precise mathematical or scientific calculation. The amount recoverable depends upon the broad facts and circumstances of each case. It must not be arbitrary. The factor to be considered in making an award basically is that the beneficiaries are entitled to the compensation of pecuniary and material loss resulting from the death of one from whom there was reasonable expectation of monetary benefit or assistance. The Tribunal must also take into account the loss suffered by the beneficiaries on some other account, i.e. the loss of company, funeral expenses, etc. The Tribunal is to adopt a method of multiplier while assessing compensation for loss of annual dependency benefit. The law is that he award of compensation must be liberally as well view life and limbs in generous scale. Money cannot viewed as a physical standard for loss and life that has been a scattered and battered, and for that the Court is to award the sum which must be regarded reasonable compensation. The law is that he award of compensation must be liberally as well view life and limbs in generous scale. Money cannot viewed as a physical standard for loss and life that has been a scattered and battered, and for that the Court is to award the sum which must be regarded reasonable compensation. The determination of quantum of compensation must answer the expectation of contemporary society, would be deemed to be a fair and reasonable sum by and be accepted by legal standard. 7. It is in the background of this law, let us find out legality and validity of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In this particular case as will be seen that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration that in 1994 by amendment of the law for no fault liability an amount of Rs.50,000 has been fixed for the death of a person, this award no doubt was given on 3.6.1993 before the amendment. But yet, when it comes up for decision today before this Court, this Court must take into account the amendment of the law to mitigate the c hardships of a person. So, on no count this amount can be less than Rs.50,000. On assessment of over a all materials, I fix the amount on this count Rs.60,000 (Rs. sixty thousand) and to it shall added an amount of Rs. 15,000 for the loss of company consortium and the misery suffered by the heirs. To it shall be added another amount of Rs.2,000 as the funeral costs. So, total award will be Rs. 77,000 (Rs. seventy seven thousand). This amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of accident till realisation. The amount shall be deposited by the insurance company, ie, respondent No. 2 within a period of three (3) months before the Tribunal and the amount shall be divided by the Tribunal amongst the heirs and the payment shall be by way of crossed-cheque in the name of the heirs. 8. This appeal is allowed as indicated above. I have heard Mr. DC Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. SK Borkataky, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. None appears for the other respondents.