ORDER Perused the record. 1. The appellants feel aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal whereunder their application seeking compensation for the death of Gangaram, the husband of the appellant No. 1 and the father of the appellants No. 2 to 8, in an motor accident on 2-6-1996 awarding compensation of an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- with 12% per annum interest from the date of the application. 2. The claimants have prayed for the enhancement of the amount of compensation to an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-. 3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has determined the income of Gangaram who was claimed to be a professional iron sheet cutter at a figure of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. 4. The claimants had asserted that the deceased earned Rs. 150/- per day. But on an assessment of the oral evidence which alone was sought to be relied upon in this connection, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the claimants had failed to establish that Gangaram had any such income as asserted. The Tribunal has further found that the wife of the deceased used to sell the earthen articles (toys) for playing and by working as a labourer used to have an income of Rs. 8/- to Rs. 10/- per day. She had admitted that the employer of her husband used to come at her house and paid some money but she could not remember how much was paid. The oral evidence tendered on behalf of the claimants regarding the income of the deceased, Gangaram was found to be unworthy of credit and based on mere hearsay. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings of the Tribunal asserting that in the present case, notional income as contemplated in the schedule read with Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, should not be taken to be the income of the deceased and in any case the finding returned by the Tribunal is not liable to be sustained as the prospects of the increased labour charges and the consequent larger income in future have not been taken into account. 6. We have considered the above submission. 7. 6. We have considered the above submission. 7. Since it is the "just" compensation which is required to be awarded, no method of calculation of compensation could be justified if it does not result in awarding the amount which is not "just" looking to the peculiar facts of each case. 8. The determination of the question of compensation depends on several imponderables and in the assessment of those imponderables there is likely to be a margin of error. 9. One has to take into account the probable duration of the life of the deceased, duration of the life of the widow and the dependents who might prematurely die, the possibility of widow's re-marriage, acceleration of interest in the estate, possibilities of increased earning on the one hand as well as the disablement or unemployment on the other. The number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and the various other imponderable circumstances such as early natural death of the deceased, his becoming incapable of supporting the dependents due to illness or other natural handicap or calamities, the prospect of the coming up of age of the dependents and their developing independent sources of income etc., have also to be taken into account. 10. In the present case, the wife of the deceased, Gangaram was shown to be aged about 35 years and the age of his sons and daughters ranged between 5 to 18 years. The Tribunal has found that the amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- was the "just" compensation. 11. The findings returned by the Tribunal on the question relating to the income of the deceased does not appear to suffer from any such legal infirmity which may justify any interference therein. 12. Considering the totality of the circumstances as brought on record, the amount determined by the Tribunal as compensation is "just" and "fair" and does not require any interference. 13. This appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed in limine.