JUDGMENT Per Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J.-Heard Ch. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bindesh Kumar Gupta and Syed Nadeem, learned counsel [or the respondents. 2. This is an appeal against the judgment and award dated 24.01.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl District Judge F.T.C.-l Rudrapur, Udhamsingh Nagar in M.A.C.T. Case No. 32 of 2003 Choor Singh and others v. Smt. Mamta Seth and others by which the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of the appellant to the extent of Rs. 62.000/- (Sixty Two Thousand) with interest pendent elite and future @ 5% per annum against the claim of Rs. 10,00,000/-. (Ten Lac) against respondent no. 2 National Insurance Company Ltd. 3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal arc that on 10th December, 2002, Choor Singh (the injured) with his wife Kashmir Kaur was going from Gurdwara, Rampur Road towards Doraha. Bajpur and at about 6:45 p.m. as soon as they proceeded from Gurdwara, a Truck bearing No. USI 5496. which was being driven rashly and negligently dashed against the motorcycle of the injured. The claimant and his wife sustained grievous injuries and ultimately his wife succumbed to the injuries. The report of the said accident was lodged at P.S. Bajpur by the son of the claimant and post-mortem of the wife of the claimant was conducted at Government Hospital, Kashipur. 4. In the claim petition, it was stated that the wife of the deceased was fifty years of age and a healthy woman and used to do the entire house-hold work and was earning a sum of Rs. 5.000/- per month from the Agricultural Dairy Farm. On account of the death of his wife, the entire life of the claimant has become paralyzed. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 10.00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs). 5. The Opp. Parties contested the claim petition before the Tribunal by filing their separate written statements. 6. Smt. Mamta Sethi the owner of the Tanker bearing Nap. USI 5496 had denied all the allegations mentioned against her and has stated that at the time of the accident, the driver of the vehicle had valid driving licence and at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company. 7. 6. Smt. Mamta Sethi the owner of the Tanker bearing Nap. USI 5496 had denied all the allegations mentioned against her and has stated that at the time of the accident, the driver of the vehicle had valid driving licence and at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company. 7. Respondent No.2 National Insurance Company has admitted in his written statement that the vehicle was insured with it, but at the time of the accident neither the driver of the tanker bearing No. USI 5496 had valid driving licence nor had endorsement for driving the tanker. Respondent no. 2 also alleged that the accident had taken place due to the negligent driving by the driver of the Motor Cycle No. URN 5052. 8. Respondent No. 2 National Insurance Company has also alleged that at the time of the accident, the truck had no valid registration, fitness and permit therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 9. The Tribunal on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issued :(1) Whether the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. USI 5496 on 10.12.2002 at 6:45 A.M. at Bajpur Rampur Road near Gurudwara causing the death of Smt. Kashmir Kaur ? (2) Whether the accident was caused due to the contributory negligence of motor cycle rider and the truck driver? (3) Whether the Driver of the truck had no valid driving licence at the time of accident? (4) Whether the petition was bad for non-joinder of the owner of motor cycle No. URM-5052 ? (5) To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled? 10. The Claims Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the truck drive. The truck driver had valid driving licence. The Claims Tribunal held the age of the deceased as 65 years and awarded a lumpsum compensation of 60,000/-. Besides this 2,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses. 11. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in the appeal. 12. We have also perused the record of the case. A perusal of the affidavit of Sri Choor Singh has proved that she was doing the business of Agricultural Dairy Farm. Paragraph 3 is quoted below: 13. Besides this 2,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses. 11. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in the appeal. 12. We have also perused the record of the case. A perusal of the affidavit of Sri Choor Singh has proved that she was doing the business of Agricultural Dairy Farm. Paragraph 3 is quoted below: 13. There is no suggestion in the cross-examination regarding denial of the income of the deceased and as such an unrebutted statement has been recorded that she was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the Agricultural Dairy Farm. We do not find any evidence or document which has been brought by the Insurance Company in order to rebut the said statement. 14. PW2 Balwant Singh, son of the deceased has also been examined and it was also submitted by him that she was only the bread-earner of the family. 15. A perusal of the evidence reveals that the deceased was doing the business of the agricultural dairy farm and the claimant had not filed any material to show the income of the deceased from the agricultural dairy farm except unrebutted statements of the witnesses. 16. Taking into consideration, the law laid down by the Apex Court in "State of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur and other, 2003 (7) SCC Page 484", the Apex Court has held that 'even if it is accepted that there was no material to show income from the Agricultural land or daily a rational view can be taken about the possible income from the agricultural land, which the Tribunal did and the High Court gave its seal of approval'. 17. Further, Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur (supra) has observed as under: "It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be "just and reasonable". It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be 'just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the 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 the 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 in 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." 18. In State of Haryana and another v. Jashir Kaur and other, (supra), the Apex Court has held as under: "In the normal course, we would have remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. But considering the fact that one young person lost his life, and the matter was pending before the Tribunal and the High Court for some years, we feel it appropriate to take all relevant factors into consideration, and decide the matter. Gauging the relevant aspects, noted above the monthly income is fixed at Rs. 3000 per month, and after deducting Rs. 1000 for personal expenses, financial contribution so far as the claimants are concerned, is fixed at Rs. 2000 per month." 19. Gauging the relevant aspects, noted above the monthly income is fixed at Rs. 3000 per month, and after deducting Rs. 1000 for personal expenses, financial contribution so far as the claimants are concerned, is fixed at Rs. 2000 per month." 19. In the case of Divisional Controller KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty reported in 2003 (7) S.C.C. Page 197, the Apex Court has observed as under: "The term 'compensation' as stated in the Oxford Dictionary, signifies that which is given in recompense, an equivalent rendered. 'Damages' on the other hand constitute the sum of money claimed Or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained, the value estimated in money, of something lost or withheld. The term 'compensation' etymologically suggests the image of balancing one thing against another; its primary signification is equivalence, and the secondary and more common meaning is something given or obtained as an equivalent. Pecuniary damages are to be valued on the basis of 'full compensation'. That concept was first stated by Lord Blackborn in 1980 AC 25 Living Stone v. Rawyards Coas Co. The "Rule of Law" requires that the wrongs should not remain unredressed. All the individuals or persons committing wrongs should be liable in an action for damages for breach of civil law or for criminal punishment. 'Compensation' means anything given to make things equivalent, a thing given or to make amends for loss, recompense, remuneration or pay; it need not, therefore, necessarily be in terms of money, because law may specify principles on which an manner in which compensation is to be determined and given, Compensation is an act which a Court orders to be done, or money which a Court orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to value for his loss; or be made whole in respect of his injury; something given or obtained as equivalent; rendering of equivalent in value or amount; an equivalent given for property taken or for an injury done to another; a recompense in value; a recompense given for a thing received; recompense for whole injury suffered; remuneration or satisfaction for injury or damage of every description. The expression 'compensation' is not ordinarily used as an equivalent to 'damages', although compensation may often have to be measured by the same rule as damages in an action for a breach. The expression 'compensation' is not ordinarily used as an equivalent to 'damages', although compensation may often have to be measured by the same rule as damages in an action for a breach. The term 'compensation' as pointed out in the Oxford Dictionary signifies that which is given in recompense, an equivalent rendered; 'damages' on the other hand constitute the sum of money, claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained. 'Compensation' is a return for a loss or damages sustained. Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind. It is true that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique frame that has been battered and shattered, as stated by Lord Merris in West V. Shepard. Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind. Object of providing compensation is to place claimant as far as possible in the same position financially as he was before accident, Broadly speaking, in the case of death basis of compensation is loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependants of the deceased which includes pecuniary loss, expenses etc, and loss to the estate. Object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the legal representatives due to sudden demise of the deceased in the accident. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and should neither be unreasonable, excessive, nor deficient. There can be no exact' uniform rule for measuring value of hum life and measure of damage cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculation; but amount recoverable depends on broad facts and circumstances of each case. It should neither be punitive against whom claim is decreed nor it should be a source of profit of the person in whose favour it is awarded. Upjohn L.J. in Charter House Credit v. Jolly, remarked, 'the assessment of damages has never been an exact science; it is essentially practical'. . The damages for vehicular accidents are in the nature of compensation in money for loss of any kind caused to any person. In case of personal injury the position is different from loss of property. In the later case there is possibility of repair or restoration. But in the case of personal injury, the possibility for repair or restoration is practically non existent. In case of personal injury the position is different from loss of property. In the later case there is possibility of repair or restoration. But in the case of personal injury, the possibility for repair or restoration is practically non existent. In Parry E Cleaver, Lord Marris stated as follows: "To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult, but........no other process can be devised than that of making monetary assessment." The main principles of law on compensation for injuries were worked out in 19th Century, where railways accidents were becoming common and all actions were tried by Jury. Through the cases have anti-quanted air it is still useful to refer to them. The necessity that damages should be 'full and 'adequate' was stressed by the court by Queen's Bench in Fair v. London and North-Western railway Co. The word compensation is derived from Latin word "compensare" meaning "weight together" or "balance". In Rushton v. National Coal Board, it was observed. "Every member of this Court is anxious to do all he can do to ensure that the damages are adequate for the injuries suffered, so far as they can be compensated for an injury, and to help the parties and others to arrive at a fair and just figure." 20. Considering all the aspects of the case, we are of the opinion that the deceased was earning at least Rs. 3,000/- at the time of the accident. 21. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- at the time of the accident and she would have incurred towards maintained herself had she been alive, as such the deceased be contributing a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. 24,000/- per annum) to her family. The age of the deceased was 65 years and as such a multiplier of five should be applied-in accordance with Schedule 2 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and thus the pecuniary loss comes to 24,000 x 5 = Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Thousand). 22. Apart from above, the claimant is also entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- as loss of consortium as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 23. The appellant is awarded a sum of Rs. 1,22,000/- as compensation along with pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 6% (six percent). 22. Apart from above, the claimant is also entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- as loss of consortium as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 23. The appellant is awarded a sum of Rs. 1,22,000/- as compensation along with pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 6% (six percent). Amount already paid shall be given due credit. Consequently, appeal is allowed.