JUDGMENT 1. :- These three Civil Miscellaneous appeals have been preferred against the Award dated 3.9.1998 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran. C.M.A. No.1187/98, is filed by the claimants for enhancement of the Award and the remaining two appeals have been filed respectively by the driver and owner jointly and by the National Insurance Company for quashing the impugned Award. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellants-claimants (hereinafter referred to as the claimants), filed a claim petition on 13.10.1997, against the driver and owner of the Truck No. C.P.O. 7580 and two Insurance Companies, insurer of the truck and jeep bearing No. RJ-28-C-404, claiming a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,51,49,634/- with the averments that the deceased Umashanker alias Munna was driving the jeep on 16.7.1997. A Truck No. CPO 7580 came at a fast speed from the opposite direction and dashed with the jeep and as a result of this accident, Umashanker died. 3. It was case of the claimants that non-applicant Manjeet Singh was driving this truck rashly and negligently and on that count this accident occurred. 4. The respondent-non-applicant Nos.1 and 2, in their joint reply denied all the allegations made in the claim petition with a specific plea that this accident took place entirely on account of negligence of the deceased who was driving this jeep. Respondent-non-applicant Nos.3 and 4, in their separate reply while admitting the factum of insurance of both the vehicles, denied all the allegations contained in the claim petition and as such disowned their liability. 5. Issues were framed. After recording the evidence of the parties, learned Tribunal, vide judgment dated 3.9.1998, came to the following conclusions:- (a) that this accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by non-applicant Manjeet Singh. (b) that both, driver i.e. deceased Uma Shanker and Manjeet Singh had valid driving licence; (c) annual income of the deceased was assessed to Rs. 2.5 lacs, multiplier of 15 was applied, total earning of Rs. 37.5 lacs was determined and after making a deduction of a sum of Rs. 7.5 lacs, passed an Award of Rs. 30 lacs in favour of the claimants with an interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of application till payment. 2.5 lacs, multiplier of 15 was applied, total earning of Rs. 37.5 lacs was determined and after making a deduction of a sum of Rs. 7.5 lacs, passed an Award of Rs. 30 lacs in favour of the claimants with an interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of application till payment. It was held that the driver, the owner as well as the insurer of the truck were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. However, the respondent No.4, New India Insurance Company of the Jeep was absolved from its liability. 5A. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. B.P. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel, for the claimants raised one preliminary objection that Appeal No.1224/1998, is not maintainable on the ground that the National Insurance Company did not apply for permitting the insurer to avail of the grounds available to an insurer as specified in Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, the Act 1988'). He placed reliance upon Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anita and others, 1997 ACJ 520 , and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh Vs. Nicollette Rohtagi and others (2002) 7 SCC 456 . Mr. Vizzy Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 i.e. National Insurance Company referred condition No.2 of Insurance Policy marked Ex.A.1 and contended that the Insurance Company had a right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds available to the person against whom the claim has been made even in absence of any permission under Section 170 of the Act 1988. He placed reliance upon British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Captain Itbar Singh and others, AIR 1959 Supreme Court 1331 . (Section 170 of the Act 1988 and Condition No.2 of the Insurance Policy are as under : "170. He placed reliance upon British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Captain Itbar Singh and others, AIR 1959 Supreme Court 1331 . (Section 170 of the Act 1988 and Condition No.2 of the Insurance Policy are as under : "170. Impleading insurer in certain cases.-Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that:- (a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. CONDITION NO.2 OF THE INSURANCE POLICY No admission, offer, promise, payment or indemnity shall be made or given by or on behalf of the insured without the written consent of the Company which shall be entitled if it so desires to take over and conduct in the name of the insured the defence or settlement of any claim or to prosecute in the name of the insured for its own benefit any claim for indemnity or damage or otherwise and shall have full discretion in the conduct of any proceedings or in the settlement of any claim and the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company may require." 6. It is not in dispute that the Insurance Company did not apply as provided under Section 170 of the Act 1988, to avail of the grounds available to a insurer or to any other person against whom a claim has been made. Therefore, unless an order is passed by the Tribunal permitting insurer to avail of the grounds available to an insured or any other person against whom a claim has been made on being satisfied of the two conditions specified in Section 170 of the Act, it is not permissible to the insurer to contest the claim on the grounds which are available to the insured or to a person against whom a claim has been made. The condition No.2 of the Insurance Policy and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court described hereinabove are of no help in view of two decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh (both supra). Thus preliminary objection that the insurer now cannot challenge the quantum of compensation or negligence or contributory negligence of the driver of the jeep is allowed. However, this preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of appeal of the Insurance Company is only of academic interest in the instant dispute as the insured and the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. truck challenging the quantum of compensation and negligence and contributory negligence of the jeep driver have already filed Appeal No.1247/1998. 7. Next point for determination in these appeals arises as to whether this accident occurred only on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck driver Manjeet Singh or it was on account of negligent driving of the jeep by the deceased or it was a case of contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers ? 8. Learned counsel Mr. H.M. Bhargava appearing for the driver as well as the owner of the truck contended that initial burden to prove negligence was upon the claimants and on behalf of the claimants A. W.5 Meghraj was examined as the only eye-witness and he did not give any evidence with regard to any negligence on the part of Manjeet Singh-driver of this truck. According to learned counsel Mr. Bhargava, decision on this issue is based upon evidence of driver Manjeet Singh himself but on the basis of his statement at least a case of contributory negligence was made out as it was a case of head-on-collusion and, therefore, involving negligence on part of both the drivers of jeep as well as truck. It was also contended that in Ex.3 certified copy of the site- plan, place of accident was not marked. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company of the truck supported the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Bhargava. Learned senior counsel Mr. Agarwal for the appellants and learned counsel Mr. It was also contended that in Ex.3 certified copy of the site- plan, place of accident was not marked. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company of the truck supported the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Bhargava. Learned senior counsel Mr. Agarwal for the appellants and learned counsel Mr. Ram Singh Rathore, appearing for the Insurance Company of the jeep supported the decision of the Tribunal on this issue and contended that the learned Tribunal having considered the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary arrived at a correct finding and after investigation charge-sheet came to be filed only against Manjeet Singh, truck driver and there is no ground to interfere with the said finding. 9. I have considered the rival submissions, the judgment of the Tribunal and the entire evidence oral as well as documentary on this point. According to the case of the claimants, A.W.5 Meghraj was sitting in this jeep at the time the accident took lace, thus Meghraj is an eye-witness of this accident. Shri Meghraj stated before the trial court that this jeep was being driven by deceased Umashanker alias Munna and he alongwith Ramchandra was sitting in this jeep. According to his statement this truck came from the opposite direction and this accident occurred. In cross-examination he stated that speed of the jeep was normal and it was on left side. He pleaded ignorance as to how this accident occurred as he became unconscious soon after the accident. In further cross-examination he stated that this accident took place on account of negligence of the truck driver as the jeep was on its side and there was no negligence on the part of deceased Umashanker. No doubt Meghraj did not say about negligent driving of the truck driver in examination-in-chief, but in cross- examination he categorically stated that jeep was with normal speed and on its left side and there was no negligence on the part of Umashanker and this accident occurred on account of negligence of truck driver. Therefore, the submission made by learned counsel Mr. Bhargava and Mr. Vizzy Agarwal that Meghraj did not give any evidence with regard to negligence of the driver of the truck is without substance Manjeet Singh was examined as N.A.W. 2. Therefore, the submission made by learned counsel Mr. Bhargava and Mr. Vizzy Agarwal that Meghraj did not give any evidence with regard to negligence of the driver of the truck is without substance Manjeet Singh was examined as N.A.W. 2. It is significant to say here that in reply Shri Manjeet Singh as well as the owner of this truck denied even this accident by this truck while in his statement Manjeet Singh admitted this accident by this truck. With regard to manner how this accident occurred, Manjeet Singh gave contradictory statement before the Tribunal. In examination-in-chief, he stated that the jeep came behind the truck and over took his truck and at that moment this jeep collided with the truck and thus this accident occurred on account of rash and egligent driving of the jeep. In cross-examination, he admitted that it was 'head on collision' and driver sides of both the vehicles were damaged on account of this accident. He also stated that tyre of the truck of the driver's side came out and his truck collied with railing. On the basis of this evidence, learned Tribunal came to this conclusion that the truck was in excessive speed and on account of this rash and negligent driving by the truck driver, this accident occurred and further the jeep was on its side and'after investigation, charge sheet came to be filed only against Manjeet Singh truck driver. In view of above evidence, I find no good ground to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal on the issue of negligence. 10. It was also contended on behalf of claimants that owner as well as the insurer of vehicle are liable for damages even if there is no negligence on the part of driver or owner. Reliance was placed upon Kaushnuma Begum and others v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 2001 ACJ 428 . Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the judgment in Kaushnuma Begum's case (supra) was delivered by two Judges of Hon'ble Apex Court while the judgment in Minu B. Mehta and another v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and another, 1977 A.C.J. 118, was delivered by 3 Judges of the Apex Court, wherein it was held that it is incumbent on the claimants to prove negligence before the owner or insurance company could be held liable for compensation. In the instant case, since negligence of truck driver has been found proved by the driver and upheld in these appeals, it is now not necessary to decide this point. 11. Now next important point for consideration arises is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is low or excessive, in other words whether the award amount should be enhanced or reduced ? 12. The Tribunal determined the age of the deceased 41 years at the time of accident. Learned counsel Mr. Bhargava and Mr. Vizzy Agarwal contended that according to the post-mortem report the age of the deceased was 45 years. In the claim petition the date of birth of the deceased is 21.5.1956 and to prove this fact the claimants filed Ex.7 certificate issued by the Head Master of Senior Secondary School, Bhanwargarh, district Baran. A.W.1 Rakesh son of deceased Umashanker has proved the certificate. In view of this evidence a different conclusion regarding the age of the deceased on the basis of age mentioned in the post-mortem report cannot be drawn and the learned Tribunal rightly determined the age of the deceased. 13. In view of second schedule under Section 163A of the Act, 1988, the multiplier of 15 was also rightly applied by the Tribunal. Now on the point of income of the deceased, learned senior counsel Mr. Agarwal, for the claimants contended that it was well proved by evidence of the claimants that minimum yearly income of the deceased was Rs. 5 lacs and there was no reason to assess 2.5 lacs as annual income of the deceased and further there was no justification to make a deduction of a sum of Rs. 7.5 lacs and further no compensation was awarded on account of loss of love and consortium and funeral expenses etc. According to learned counsel for the claimants there was no evidence in rebuttal with regard to income of the deceased. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Bhargava and Mr. Vizzy Agarwal submitted that according to the averments made in the claim petition the deceased was an agriculturist and he used to cultivate his own agricultural land about 20 bighas and about 100 bighas agricultural land belonging to others and his monthly income on account of this was about Rs. 40,000/- and thus question of 5 lacs annual income does not arise. 40,000/- and thus question of 5 lacs annual income does not arise. It was also submitted that it is not normally possible for one person to cultivate agricultural land of about 125 bighas and no reliable evidence with regard to quantum of crop and annual income is available on the record. It was also contended that revenue records of certain agricultural lands and diaries containing accounts of income are wholly irrelevant to decide the income of the deceased. It was also contended that normally ⅓rd of the income is deducted as personal expenses while in the instant case less than ⅕th of amount was deducted by the Tribunal as own expenses and there was absolutely no evidence to determine annual dependency of Rs. 2.5 lacs. Both learned counsel referred oral as well as documentary evidence produced on behalf of the claimants. 14. I have considered the pleadings, evidence-oral as well as documentary, submissions advanced at the Bar and the Award of the Tribunal. According to the averments made in para 33 of the claim petition, deceased Umashanker was an agriculturist. He used to cultivate 132 bighas irrigated agricultural land which was in joint khatedari and also used to cultivate 80 to 125 bighas of agricultural land every year belonging to other persons namely 35 bighas of Ramchandra Dhakar, 40 bighas of Hamendra Kumar Mahesh Kumar Garg, 15 bighas of Kanhaiyalal Ahir, 16 bighas of Bal Ram Dhakar, 40 bighas of Radhey Shyam, 15 bighas of Litru, 20 bighas of Shriya Ganga Ram, 15 bighas of Mangla, 17 bighas of Babu Lal and 14 bighas of Kanhaiyalal Sondhilal. It was also pleaded that after deducting the amount of expenses, his net yearly income from the agriculture was Rs. 5 lacs. He had set up three tube-wells in the years 1994 to 1997, and also purchased tractor, thrasher, jeep and motor cycle. In reply, the non-applicants-respondents denied all these averments. 15. Statement of A. W.1 Rakesh was recorded on 6.5.1998. He was 21 years of age at that time. According to his own statement he is son of deceased Umashanker. He stated before the Tribunal that his father's net income from agriculture was Rs. 5 lacs per year. In reply, the non-applicants-respondents denied all these averments. 15. Statement of A. W.1 Rakesh was recorded on 6.5.1998. He was 21 years of age at that time. According to his own statement he is son of deceased Umashanker. He stated before the Tribunal that his father's net income from agriculture was Rs. 5 lacs per year. His father was having 20 bighas of land in his own khatedari and apart from that his father used to cultivate some times 90 bighas and some times 100 bighas agricultural land belonging to others. He has exhibited Ex.27 to 35, which are certified copies of 'Jamabandi' in the names of certain persons and Ex.54 to 57 as diaries wherein his father used to maintain accounts of income for the year 1994 to 1997. According to the statement of Rakesh, these diaries are in the handwriting of his father. It was also stated by him that during the life time of his father, he alongwith his younger disabled brother and younger sister were taking their education at Kota and on account of the death of their father all three had to give up their studies. A. W.2 Hamendra Kumar stated that late Umashanker used to cultivate his 40 bighas of land and also used to cultivate agricultural land belonging to three or four other persons and his net annual income from it was Rs. 5 lacs. As per statement of A.W.3 Ram Chandra Dhakad, deceased used to cultivate his 35 bighas land also and that land was irrigated from the Well belonging to deceased. As per the statement of A.W.4 Mahendra, late Umashanker was his uncle in the distant relation and he used to cultivate his own agricultural land measuring 20 to 21 bighas and about 100 to 125 bighas of land belonging to others. The statements of other witnesses are not relevant on this point. 16. The learned Tribunal, observed that there is oral evidence on behalf of the claimants that deceased Umashanker used to cultivate his own agricultural land about 20 bighas and about 100 to 125 bighas of agricultural land belonging to others and Ex.54 to 57 diaries are in the hand writing of late Umashanker. It was also observed that there is no evidence in rebuttal and thus it was found that deceased Umashanker was a well-to-do farmer. It was also observed that there is no evidence in rebuttal and thus it was found that deceased Umashanker was a well-to-do farmer. The learned Judge thus assessed 2.50 lacs as yearly income of late Shri Umashanker. 17. In assessing income of the deceased in accident claims cases, a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation and in doing so, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration. However, all such elements are required to be viewed with objective standards. The Tribunal or the Court cannot base its opinion merely on speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is inevitable. 18. In the instant case the Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased, based its opinion merely on speculation. Evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants is contrary to pleadings, oral evidence is self-contradictory and it is contrary to documentary evidence also. At page 9 of the claim petition, it is averred that 132 bighas of agricultural land is in joint khatedari of deceased Umashanker. The share of the deceased Umashanker is not specified in the claim petition. As per statement of A.W. 1 Rakesh, in all 20 bighas of land was in Khatedari of his father. As per Ex.33 Jamabandi, half of about 90 bighas barani land (non-irrigated) comes to share of five persons including late Uma Shanker. Thus Umashanker has approximately nine bighas land in his share. According to Ex.34 Jamabandi, total agricultural land is about 31 bighas and out of this, about 20 bighas is irrigated and the remaining land is barani. This land is recorded in the name of brothers and mother of late Umashanker. Thus, late Umashanker had no share in this land as per Ex.34. Ex.35, Jamabandi, comprises approximately 75 bighas of agricultural land. This land is recorded in equal shares of 11 persons including Umashanker. Thus approximately 7 bighas land falls to the share of Umashanker. Therefore, in all about 16 bighas of land comes to the share of deceased. Neither there are pleadings nor evidence to show that the deceased used to cultivate agricultural land belonging to other members of his family i.e. brothers and mother. As per Ex.27 jamabandi about 16 bighas of barani land is in the name of Balram Dhakar. Therefore, in all about 16 bighas of land comes to the share of deceased. Neither there are pleadings nor evidence to show that the deceased used to cultivate agricultural land belonging to other members of his family i.e. brothers and mother. As per Ex.27 jamabandi about 16 bighas of barani land is in the name of Balram Dhakar. Shri Litru has got about 15 bighas barani land according to Ex.28, Jamabandi, Shriya Gangaram has got about 20 bighas of barani land, as per jamabandi Ex.29, Mangla has got 15 bighas barani land, as per Ex.30, Shri Ramchandra Dhakad has got 16 bighas of barani land in his khatedari, as per Ex.31, Shri Babu Lai Dhakad brother of Shri Ram Chandra has got 17 bighas of barani land in his khatedari as per Ex.32, Shri Kanhaiyalal Ahir has got about 14 bighas of barani land, according to Jamabandi Ex.32. No copy of jamabandi in the name of Kanhaiyalal Sondilal has been placed on record on behalf of the claimants. Out of these 11 persons named in the claim petition, only A.W. 2 Hamendra Kumar and A.W. 3 Ram Chandra Dhakad were examined. As per claim petition, Umashanker used to cultivate about 35 bighas of land belonging to Ram Chandra Dhakad while according to Ex.31 about 16 bighas of barani land is recorded in his name. In examination-in-chief it was stated by Ram Chandra that his 35 bigha land was cultivated by deceased and this land was irrigated from the well of deceased. This statement of Ram Chandra is contrary to Jamabandi Ex.31 and there is absolutely no other evidence to show that land belonging to A.W. 2 Ram Chandara was irrigated from the well of Umashanker. In cross-examination he stated that in all 125 bighas of land was in his father's name and he got about 22 bighas as his share. This statement is contrary to what is stated in examination-in-chief and contrary to Ex.31 Jamabandi. He also stated that his land was cultivated by Umashanker 5 to 6 years ago. His statement was recorded on 27.5.1998 and thus this land according to his statement was cultivated by Umashanker only in the year 1992-93, while accounts of income for the years 1994 to 97 have been produced in form of diaries. Thus the statement of A.W. 3 Ram Chandra is not reliable at all. His statement was recorded on 27.5.1998 and thus this land according to his statement was cultivated by Umashanker only in the year 1992-93, while accounts of income for the years 1994 to 97 have been produced in form of diaries. Thus the statement of A.W. 3 Ram Chandra is not reliable at all. As per claim petition and statement of A.W.2 Hamendra Kumar, cousin of late Umashanker 40 bighas of land belonging to him was cultivated by late Umashanker. No revenue record showing any land in his khatdari was produced. The name of Madan Gopal, father of A. W.2 Hamendra Kumar has been recorded in jamabandi Ex.35 and as per Ex.35 about seven bighas land comes to share of Madan Lal. In cross-examination, he contrary to his statement in examination-in-chief admitted that his three brothers and their father have share in this land. He further states that Umashanker used to cultivate land belonging to three or four persons and one Naba Singh. Thus, his entire statement on this point being contrary to pleadings, revenue record and self-contradictory is wholly unreliable. 19. The evidence of A.W. 4 Mahendra is also unreliable on the point that Umashanker used to cultivate his own 20-21 bighas of land. As stated here-in-above, Umashanker had only about 16 bighas of land as his share in joint Khatedari. This statement is also not reliable that Umashanker used to cultivate 100-125 bighas agricultural land belonging to others. Even the pleadings on this point are self contradictory . On the one hand it was pleaded that Umashanker used to cultivate agricultural land about 80 to 125 bighas belonging to others and on the other hand when the details of agricultural land belonging to 11 other persons when calculated comes to more than 225 bighas. Having careful consideration of entire evidence on this point, no such conclusion can be drawn that Umashanker used to cultivate about 20 bigahs agricultural land of his own and about 100 to 125 bighas of land belonging to others. Although it is not necessary to examine all the witnesses but in the instant case, examination of persons whose lands said to be cultivated by deceased, should have been examined and no reason has been assigned as to why Bal Ram, Radhey Shyam, Litru, Shriya Ganga Ram, Mangla, Babulal and both Kanhaiyalal were not examined on behalf of the claimants. Although it is not necessary to examine all the witnesses but in the instant case, examination of persons whose lands said to be cultivated by deceased, should have been examined and no reason has been assigned as to why Bal Ram, Radhey Shyam, Litru, Shriya Ganga Ram, Mangla, Babulal and both Kanhaiyalal were not examined on behalf of the claimants. It is also significant to say here that not a single labourer was examined on behalf of the claimants to say that whose and how much land was being cultivated by or on behalf of Umashanker. The conclusion arrived at by learned Tribunal that Umashanker used to cultivate about 100 to 125 bighas of land belonging to others is based simply on speculations. Statement of even Rakesh is not reliable at all. His oral testimony is not only contrary to pleadings but also contrary to other oral as well as documentary evidence as discussed hereinabove. It is also important to say here that there is no evidence to prove the quantum of the crop and income derived by sale of the same. The learned Tribunal wrongly relied upon the entries made in diaries Ex.54 to 57. As per the statement of Rakesh, these diaries were maintained by his father during the period of 1994 to 1997. Entries made in diaries Ex.54 to 57 do not bear initials or signatures of any person concerned or Umashanker himself. Only one entry in Ex.54 bears the date of 1.11.1994, while entries in Ex.57 bear dates. Simply on the basis of statement of A.W. 1 Rakesh, it was not safe to say that theses diaries were maintained by late Umashanker. The submission made by learned Senior Counsel Shri Agarwal cannot be accepted that there is no rebuttal of the above evidence as the respondents were not in a position to rebut evidence of the claimants on this aspect. Further the entries in these diaries do not furnish any material to arrive at any income of Shri Umashanker. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence to prove Rs. 5 lacs annual income as pleaded or Rs. 2.5 lacs as determined by the Tribunal. In absence of the evidence to show yearly quantum, and price of the crop, assessment of annual income by the Tribunal appears to be highly excessive and unjustified. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence to prove Rs. 5 lacs annual income as pleaded or Rs. 2.5 lacs as determined by the Tribunal. In absence of the evidence to show yearly quantum, and price of the crop, assessment of annual income by the Tribunal appears to be highly excessive and unjustified. As observed hereinabove, fixing the amount of compensation in accident cases involves some guess work and some hypothetical consideration but all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards and not entirely on speculations, while the assessment made by the Tribunal is solely based on speculations. 20. Now the question is as to what could be the income of the deceased Umashanker ? Admittedly deceased Umashanker was an agriculturist. A.W.1 Rakesh exhibited some documents. Ex.9 to 11 bills are not in the name of Umashanker and thus not relevant. Ex.12 bill though in the name of Umashanker is also not relevant on the point of his income. According to two bills Ex.13 and 14, it appears that Umashanker purchased agricultural implements. The price of seed drill as per Ex.13 is Rs. 8500/- and that of thrasher as per Ex.14 is Rs. 55,000/-. As per evidence available on the record, the jeep involved in this accident was in the name of Umashanker and his uncle. A suggestion was given to A.W. 2 Hamendra Kumar in cross-examination that registration of the tractor was in the name of Umashanker and his brothers and their mother. There is oral evidence to show that Umashanker had one motor cycle. On the basis of the entire material, at least this may be held that late Umashanker used to cultivate some agricultural land belonging to others also. It is also significant to say here that the learned Judge of the Tribunal observed at page 10 of his judgment that it was argued by learned counsel for the non-applicants that annual income of Rs. 40-50,000/- was possible from the crop of 17-18 bighas of land belonging to late Umashanker. Thus, keeping in view the nature of agricultural implements, jeep, tractor, motor cycle, the fact that prior to his death his three children were getting education at Kota and the contention of learned counsel for the non-applicants-respondents before the learned Tribunal, about Rs. 40-50 thousand yearly income from his land, yearly income of the deceased may be assessed to be Rs. 40-50 thousand yearly income from his land, yearly income of the deceased may be assessed to be Rs. 1 lac. In absence of any specific evidence, ⅓rd of the income has to be deducted as his own expenses. The multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal has not been disputed by either side in this appeal. Thus, an amount of Rs. 10 lacs is fixed as compensation payable to the claimants. 21. Learned senior counsel Shri Agarwal rightly submitted that some amount should have been awarded by the Tribunal on account of loss of love and affection and consortium. A total sum of Rs. 25,000/- is allowed to the claimants in this regard. 22. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 1187/98 filed by the claimants is dismissed. Appeal No. 1224/1998 filed by National Insurance Company is also dismissed being not maintainable. But appeal No. 1247/1998, filed by Manjeet Singh and others is partly allowed and the Award amount is modified. A sum of Rs. 10,25,000/- is awarded as compensation instead of Rs. 30 lacs, with interest at the rate allowed by the Tribunal. A sum of Rs. 55,000/- shall be paid to mother of the deceased Smt. Bhagwanti, aged 75 yeas. Rs. 5 lacs shall be paid to Smt. Lad Bai, w/o deceased Uma Shanker in the manner that Rs. 2 lacs for ten years and Rs. 2 lacs for five years shall be deposited in F.D.R. Remaining amount be deposited in her Saving Account of any Nationalised Bank. The claimants Rakesh Kumar and Kumari Sonu, each would get Rs. 1,25,000/-. Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to each of them, while remaining amount shall be deposited in F.D.R. for five years. In case Ku. Sonu is unmarried, the amount of F.D.R. in her name may be withdrawn at the time of her marriage. The remaining amount shall be paid to Indresh Kumar, who is said to be disabled. The entire amount shall be deposited in F.D.R. for a period of ten years. Accrued interest shall be paid after every six months for his expenses. No loanl advance is permissible on the deposits. Excess amount of compensation, if deposited, be refunded to the depositor.Appeal Nos.1187 And 1224 Dismissed. Appeal No.1247 Partly Allowed. *******