ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE New India assurance Company Limited is the appellant filed this appeal, aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was claimed by the first respondent-claimant herein towards the injuries and fractures sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 7-8-1999, when he was returning to Nizamabad from Bhainsa in a Jeep bearing No. MH-26-C-996. At about 5. 30 p. m. , when the jeep reached in the limits of Degaon Village at the same time, the driver of jeep drove the jeep with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a tractor, due to which the claimant sustained fracture to his right hand and also sustained multiple and grievous injuries on other parts of the body. Immediately the petitionerclaimant was shifted to the Nursing Home of Dr. Bhoopathi Reddy, thereafter he took treatment under two private doctors, and spent huge amount towards medicines and for extra nourishment. Prior to the accident, the claimant was hale and healthy and due to accident he became permanently disabled, and hence he had claimed rs. 1,00,000/ -. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 2, who is the appellant herein, filed counter resisting the claim of the petitioner and denying the occurrence of the accident and loss of earning caused due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the claimant, PWs. l and 2 were examined and Exs. A. l to A. 19 were got marked. PW. l is the petitioner and pw. 2 is the doctor, who examined PW. l after four years of the accident occurred and gave a disability certificate. On behalf of the respondents, RW. l was examined and Ex. B. l the copy of the policy was got marked. On the basis of both oral and documentary evidence, it was held by the learned chairman of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver. ( 4 ) COMING to the payment of compensation, the statement of the claimant is that he has sustained fractures, but not injuries to his right leg as recorded by the chairman of the Tribunal and he was treated as an in-patient for a period of 8 days in dr. ( 4 ) COMING to the payment of compensation, the statement of the claimant is that he has sustained fractures, but not injuries to his right leg as recorded by the chairman of the Tribunal and he was treated as an in-patient for a period of 8 days in dr. Bhoopathi Reddy Hospital and spent an amount of Rs. 30/000/- towards medicines and for extra nourishment. As per the evidence of PW. 2, Dr. L. Ramulu, M. S. Ortho Surgeon, on 6. 6. 2002 he examined the claimant and assessed 55 % permanent partial disability for sustaining malunited fracture restricted moment of index finger. Ex. A. 16 is the disability certificate issued by PW. 2, who treated the claimant. According to the learned Chairman, the claimant sustained as many as two fractures, therefore, he awarded Rs. 80,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner-claimant, and rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards medicines and for extra nourishment and amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards past and future, pain and sufferings. ( 5 ) AS seen from the record placed before the Court, Ex. A. 15 is the prescriptions said to have given by doctor, who treated the claimant i. e. , Dr. Bhupathi Reddy and x-ray report, which does not disclose how the reporting fractures sustained by the claimant (R. 1 ). Even as seen from the evidence of PW. 2, Dr. Ramulu, who examined the claimant on 6. 6. 2002 certified that the claimant is having 55% partial permanent disability for sustaining malunited fracture, which does not disclose that he has sustained two fractures. I am unable to understand on what evidence the learned chairman came to a conclusion that the claimant sustained two fractures and awarded an amount of Rs. 80,000/- towards compensation to the claimant. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that while awarding rs. 80,000/-, there is no discussion relating to the income of the claimant and what is the loss of earnings sustained by the claimant by virtue of the petitioner sustained injuries. How an amount of Rs. 80,000/- compensation was arrived at by the Tribunal, there are no reasons no discussion, and no evidence in the evidence. I can say it is quite contrary to the evidence adduced by both oral and documentary on behalf of the claimant. The Chairman has failed to consider the evidence of RW. How an amount of Rs. 80,000/- compensation was arrived at by the Tribunal, there are no reasons no discussion, and no evidence in the evidence. I can say it is quite contrary to the evidence adduced by both oral and documentary on behalf of the claimant. The Chairman has failed to consider the evidence of RW. l in respect of any issue involved in the above claim petition. Without any hesitation, I can say that the Chairman of the Tribunal has awarded this compensation by non- application of mind, without knowing what is the evidence and what is the compensation to be awarded to the claimant. Even as seen from Ex. A. 3, which was placed before this court, which shows that at the time, when the police send the claimant-injured for examination, the medical officer i. e. Deputy civil Surgeon, Community Hospital, Bhainsa, examined the injured person after two years and 11 days from the date of accident. These are the injuries noted: " (1) Bandage in situ for right hand grievous injury. (2) An abrasion measuring 5" x 1" (Upper one), 3" x 1" (Lower one) on left lower part of the thigh scab is falling - Simple injury except this, there is no other fracture, and age of the injuries was noted as 11 to 12 days old. Except the first injury on the right hand, all other injuries are simple and no fractural injuries. The learned Chairman even has not given consideration to this certificate before awarding any compensation, which is totally non-application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, in the absence of any proof of income of the claimant, loss of income of the claimant, the Chairman should have awarded a reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant and for 8 days treatment, which he was underwent before Dr. Bhoopathi Reddy. On the other hand, he has awarded the entire amount claimed by the claimant without any of discussion and on appraisal of the evidence. ( 6 ) I have come across several instances where the Chairmen of the Motor accident Claims Tribunal are losing sight of the decided principles and deciding the fate of the victims of accident in terms of their own whims and fancies. The instant case is one of such example. ( 6 ) I have come across several instances where the Chairmen of the Motor accident Claims Tribunal are losing sight of the decided principles and deciding the fate of the victims of accident in terms of their own whims and fancies. The instant case is one of such example. Therefore, it is high time to once again impress upon them to adhere to the decided principles and adjudicate the matters within the parameters of ratio laid down therein. ( 7 ) THE Apex Court in General manager, Kerala State Road Transport corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma thomas and others, AIR 1994 SC 1631 , as long back as in the year 1994 has ruled that the measure of damages is the pecuniary loss suffered and is likely to be suffered by each dependant. In the words of Lord macmillan, (1942 AC 601 at 609), except where there is express statutory direction to the contrary, the damages to be awarded to a dependant of a deceased person under the fatal Accidents Act must take into account any pecuniary benefit accruing to that dependant in consequence of the death of the deceased. His Lordship further observed that it is the net loss of balance which constitutes the measure or damages. In the words of Lord Wright, the actual pecuniary loss of each individual entitled to sue can only be ascertained by balancing, on the one hand, the loss to him of the future pecuniary benefit, and on the other, any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to him by reason of the death. These words of Lord Wright were adopted as the principle applicable also under the Indian act in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. , Allahabad v. R. M. K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1 , wherein the Apex Court has held that the general principle is that the actual pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the nature pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by reason of the death, that is, the balance of loss and gain to a dependant by the death, must be ascertained. ( 8 ) THE assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to be taken into account many imponderables viz. ( 8 ) THE assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to be taken into account many imponderables viz. , life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live upto the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether. ( 9 ) IN assessing the damages, the net income has to be ascertained to support himself and his dependants and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regard both self maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants and that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years purchase. ( 10 ) THE multiplier method involves the ascertainments of loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicands by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants, whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. ( 11 ) THESE are the broad principles laid down by the Apex Court in determining the compensation. Applying these guidelines to the facts of the case, let us see, whether the learned Chairman has even just touched these guidelines superfluously. As stated earlier no loss of income of the injured is established by cogent evidence nor there is any deformity or segregation of any of the parts of the body is either pleaded or proved. In such circumstances, quantifying an exorbitant sum, as compensation, without being justified by clinching evidence adduced by the claimant, is nothing but disbursing charity, at the cost of public exchequer. In such circumstances, quantifying an exorbitant sum, as compensation, without being justified by clinching evidence adduced by the claimant, is nothing but disbursing charity, at the cost of public exchequer. No doubt, Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, but that does not entitle the Judicial Officers to determine the compensation so generously and disburse the same in utter derogation of the decided principles. When the medical certificate shows that the injured sustained one fracture, the learned Chairman, assuming for himself that he sustained two factures, on the basis of Ex. A. 15 prescription of Dr. Bhupathi reddy, which does not disclose gravity or number of injuries or wounds, awarded compensation at Rs. 80,000/ -. I am, therefore, constrained to hold that the learned chairman, M. A. C. T. (ADJ), Nizamabad (Mr. M. A. Shareej) has totally lost track of the case and quantified the compensation, which is unsustainable in law. If the lis are adjudicated in such a way by the Senior judicial Officers like District Judges, the judicial system of this country itself would be at stake. Evidently, the learned Chairman, mact, Nizamabad, does not appear to be aware of even the basics of appreciation of evidence and to satisfy his fancies, quantified such exorbitant sum without there being any satisfactory and acceptable evidence. Therefore, I am of the considered view that copy of this judgment shall remain placed on the personal file of the Chairman, m. A. C. T, Nizamabad (Mr. M. A, Shareej) i further recommend that the Officer shall not be entrusted with the work of deciding m. V. Act cases, at least for some time. ( 12 ) TAKING into consideration and as per Schedule-II of Motor. Vehicles Act, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, Rs. 5,000/- awarded to the first injury and Rs. 2,000/- to two abrasions sustained by the claimant, which conies to rs. 7,000/- and he is entitled for another rs. 10,000/- for loss of earnings, though it is not evident from the record for undergoing treatment for a period of 8 days, Rs. 3,000/- is granted towards medical treatment. The claimant-petitioner thus entitled to Rs. 5,000 + 2,000 + 10,000 + 3,000 = Rs. 20,000/- ( 13 ) THEREFORE, the award passed by the tribunal is modified to the extent above, restricting the award to an amount of rs. 3,000/- is granted towards medical treatment. The claimant-petitioner thus entitled to Rs. 5,000 + 2,000 + 10,000 + 3,000 = Rs. 20,000/- ( 13 ) THEREFORE, the award passed by the tribunal is modified to the extent above, restricting the award to an amount of rs. 20,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.