Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur ("Tribunal") vide award dated 30/11/2000 in MACT Case No. 111/2000. .2. Claimants are widow and four minor children of deceased Ramraj, aged 42 years, while going on motor bike on 31.05.2000 at 1.15 P.M. from Anaj Mandi to City of Sawai Madhopur, when reached near at Pulia of Latia Nala ahead Aalanpur, a Bus No. RJ-25/P/0333 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, met with an accident - as a result of which he died on the spot. As per claim petition, Ramraj was engaged in agricultural profession having 50 bighas of land in his possession, and .so also having general merchant shop out of which, as per statement of Harbai (AW. 1) he was having monthly earning of Rs. 4,000/-and annual income @ Rs. Two lac from agricultural land but the Tribunal has not taken into consideration this aspect of evidence on record and on the basis of his own guess work, awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 2.51 lacs including costs of Rs. 1,000/-vide impugned award. 3. Shri Nitin Jain, Counsel for appellants has urged that on the basis of material on record, the Tribunal has failed to assess income of the deceased and without applying proper multiplier as provided in Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act") awarded compensation which has no rational basis, which requires reconsideration by this Court. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of Apex Court in Gen. Man. K.S.R.T.C. vs. S. Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 and in Sarla Dixit vs. Balwant Yadav, 2004 (1) ACC 396 (SC). 4. Per contra, Shri Saurabh Purohit, Counsel for respondent Insurance Company, urged that in the absence of any documentary evidence in respect of the income from agriculture, no assessment in true sense can be made but the Tribunal after taking note of over all material on record awarded just and reasonable compensation which requires no interference by this Court. The Counsel in support of aforesaid contention relied upon decisions in State of Harayana vs. Jasbir Kaur, 2003 (7) SCC 484 . .5. I have considered the contentions advanced by Counsel for either parties and with their assistance, perused the record. The Counsel in support of aforesaid contention relied upon decisions in State of Harayana vs. Jasbir Kaur, 2003 (7) SCC 484 . .5. I have considered the contentions advanced by Counsel for either parties and with their assistance, perused the record. While granting compensation under the Act it is required to be determined, which in turn appears to be just and reasonable and that can only be examined from material on record but no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Apex Court in State of Har. vs. Jasbir Kaur, AIR 2003 SC 3696 observed as under: - ."The Courts and Tribunals have a due to weigh 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 depended upon 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 on 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. See Helen C. Rebello vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1998 SC 3191 ." 6. It was also a case where income of deceased could not be proved on the basis of documentary evidence but the Tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs. 4,500/- per month and no reason was indicated to arrive at this figure. But the Apex Court on the basis of material on record considered Rs. 3,000/-per month as his income and accordingly computed just compensation for the family of deceased towards loss of income after deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses. 7. 4,500/- per month and no reason was indicated to arrive at this figure. But the Apex Court on the basis of material on record considered Rs. 3,000/-per month as his income and accordingly computed just compensation for the family of deceased towards loss of income after deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses. 7. It is true that while awarding compensation determination has to be in real sense and "damages" in turn appears to be "just and reasonable" but all various factors have to be taken note of while quantifying the amount of compensation which would depend upon particular facts and circumstances of each case. Likewise, it is true that no golden rule can be made applicable to all cases for measuring value of human life. Measure of damages cannot be reached by precise mathematical calculations. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in background of "just" compensation. 8. It is clear from a reading of the impugned award that the Tribunal while arriving at conclusion to award compensation, has not cared to consider about income and method for calculating just compensation and no reasons are forthcoming on record. Apex Court in Gen. Man. K.S.R.T.C. vs. S. Thomas (Supra), has considered; that multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. There may be cases which may proceed on the basis of aggregating entire future earnings for over the period of life expectancy lost, after deducting percentage towards uncertainties of future life, but it has been considered by Apex Court as clearly unscientific. The Apex Court observed as under: - ".....The proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure except in exceptional and extra ordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. Some Judgment s of the High Courts have justified a departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in so far as it envisages the compensation to be just, the statutory determination of a just compensation would unshackle the exercise from any rigid formula. It must be borne in mind that the multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a just compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards. We disapprove these decisions of the High Courts which have taken a contrary view. It must be borne in mind that the multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a just compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards. We disapprove these decisions of the High Courts which have taken a contrary view. We indicate that the multiplier method, is the appropriate method, a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extra ordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases." 9. In Sarla Dixit vs. Balwant Yadav (Supra), Apex Court has also considered afore quoted principles, and observed that as regards adoption of proper multiplier, future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand and while choice of multiplier is determined by two factors, namely rate of interest appropriate to stable economy and age of the deceased or of claimant, whichever is higher, the ascertainment of the multiplicand is a more difficult exercise and many factors have to be put into scales to evaluate contingencies of the future. 10. In instant case, there was no documentary evidence on record to prove about the income of deceased, except statement made by claimant Smt. Harbai (AW.1) before the Tribunal, and as per her statement (AW. 1), the deceased was 42 years of age and so far as his income is concerned, she has produced Jamabanadi (Exhibit-9 and 10) on record which clearly shows that fifty bighas of unirrigated land in their possession being harvested in all seasons, which was their source of livelihood besides having regular earning from general merchant shop and all these material on record remained uncontroverted. This material may not ultimately go to determine actual income of the deceased but if it is examined from another angle then it cannot be ruled out that he had source of income for livelihood of his family from agricultural land and general merchant shop, which can be good attending circumstance to determine reasonable compensation apart from it, he was 42 years of age and his income would not have been frozen for all times to come but would have been reasonably enhanced, future prospects of advancement in life should also be noticed in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. 11. In the light of what has been discussed supra about just compensation, the income can be estimated in the absence of documentary evidence to justify estimation. 11. In the light of what has been discussed supra about just compensation, the income can be estimated in the absence of documentary evidence to justify estimation. In the absence of determination of income by the Tribunal, the matter in ordinary course was required to be remitted back for re-consideration but the fact that the deceased was 42 years of age and the accident is of May, 2000, remanding the matter back at this stage is not going to serve any purpose particularly when evidence recorded is already on record before me for consideration. After 1994 amendment in the Schedule to the Act, with regard to non-earning members, for whom Rs. 15,000/-per annum has been considered to be financial dependency of the family. However, taking into consideration over all conspectus of the material on record and other ancillary aspect, I consider Rs. 3,600/-as monthly income of the deceased and after 1/3rd deduction towards his personal expenses, dependency of family comes to Rs. 2,400/-per month and looking to the age of deceased, multiplier of 15 as per Schedule to the Act will be appropriate to be adopted, compensation is accordingly determined to Rs. 4,32,000/-towards loss of income qua dependency of the family. 12. As regards compensation towards love, affection and consortium, the Tribunal has not considered and discussed on this aspect of the matter, it requires interference by this Court and in my considered opinion, Rs. 10,000/-towards consortium to wife and Rs. 5,000/-for love and affection to each of children would meet ends of justice for awarding compensation. Thus, in all claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,63,000/-(4,30,000/-+ Rs. 10,000/-(Consortium) and Rs. 5,000/-x 4 = Rs. 20,000/-towards love and affection and Rs. 1,000/ as costs). 13. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,12,000/-{Rs. 4,63,000/-minus Rs, 2,51,000/-awarded by Tribunal} which shall also carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till actual payment. Enhanced compensation with interest shall be deposited by Insurance Company through A/c payee bank draft before the Tribunal within one month. The Tribunal is further directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in Monthly Income Scheme of post office for a term of six years in the name of wife-claimant who will be entitled to receive monthly interest on post office MIS account supra as well as full amount of MIS on its maturity. The Tribunal is further directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in Monthly Income Scheme of post office for a term of six years in the name of wife-claimant who will be entitled to receive monthly interest on post office MIS account supra as well as full amount of MIS on its maturity. No order as to costs.