JUDGMENT 1. - Instant appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur ("Tribunal") in M.A.C.T. Case No. 207/99 vide award dated 2nd March, 2001. 2. Claimants are wife, four minor children and parents of deceased Revarmal, aged 30 years, who was a skilled labourer engaged in shoemaking and earning Rs. two-three thousand per month, as alleged in claim petition. On 25th March, 1999 the deceased while travelling in offending bus DL-1/P-0764, met with an accident having taken place due to rash and negligent act of driver and conductor of the offending bus, and he fell down out of the bus, thereby died on the spot. 3. The Tribunal after taking note of material on record, awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 2.51 lacs including costs of Rs. 1,000 with interest 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till actual payment, vide impugned award. 4. Mr. L.L. Gupta, Counsel for claimants urged that despite specific statement of Parvati (AW 1) that the deceased was engaged in shoe making and saving Rs. three thousand per month, according to him, the Tribunal erred in not first determining monthly income of deceased and computing compensation after applying proper multiplier of 18 as per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act") and that apart being low-paid employee, looking to numbers of dependants upon the deceased, no personal expenses can be expected to be incurred by him. Mr. Gupta further urged that nothing has been awarded for non-pecuniary losses like consortium, damages for love and affection, funeral expenses, and thus impugned award requires interference by this Court. 5. Contrarily, Mrs. Archna Mantri Counsel for respondent-Insurance Company urged that even as per statement of Parvati (AW 1), the Tribunal has not committed any error in determining age of deceased as 30 years and that apart, no material was placed by the claimants to justify his income as such on the basis of material on record, and so also guess work undertaken by the Tribunal. In this view of matter, whatever may be the earning capacity of deceased, certain part of which is spent for personal expenses, hence, lumpsum compensation awarded by Tribunal is adequate and reasonable, requiring no enhancement and interference by this Court. 6. I have considered rival contentions and with their assistance, examined the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In this view of matter, whatever may be the earning capacity of deceased, certain part of which is spent for personal expenses, hence, lumpsum compensation awarded by Tribunal is adequate and reasonable, requiring no enhancement and interference by this Court. 6. I have considered rival contentions and with their assistance, examined the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In the light of material on record, compensation has to be awarded for welfare of the family since they have lost their sole bread-earner and this fact can also not be brushed aside that what has been lost by family in no manner can be replaced but atleast can be compensated which is just, equitable and permissible under the provisions of the Act. 7. It is true that while granting compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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 Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, AIT 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 depend 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, a 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 v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1998 SC 3191 ." 8. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1998 SC 3191 ." 8. In view of what has been observed by Apex Court, what is just and reasonable has to be determined on the basis of material on record which depends upon particular facts and attending circumstances of each case. But while ensuring just compensation which may make uniformity and certainty, there should not ordinarily be any departure from consideration of Second Schedule of the Act. 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. 9. Apex Court in Gen. Man., K.S.R.T.C v. S. Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 : 1994 (1) TAC 323 , 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 extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. Some judgments 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, insofar 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. We indicate that the multiplier method is the appropriate method, a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases." 10. Recently the Apex Court in Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Dir. 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 extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases." 10. Recently the Apex Court in Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Dir. Gen., Geological Survey of India, AIR 2003 SC 1817 , held that provisions contained in Second Schedule appended to the Act have proved to be a guidelines so far as the cases covered under the said Schedule are concerned and in para 11, the Apex Court observed as under: "11. It is now settled principle of law that the payment of compensation on the basis of Structured Formula as provided for under the Second Schedule should not ordinarily deviated from. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down the guidelines for determination of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166 thereof. Deviation of the Structured formula, however, as has been held by this Court, may be resorted to in exceptional cases." 11. 1n instant case, Smt. Parvati (AW 1) in her statement deposed that deceased was shoe-maker and earning daily Rs. 300-400 and saving Rs. 3,000 monthly and he was aged 36 years. It is true that in cross-examination, she stated that she has 28 years of married life but in this view of evidence, it cannot be said that the Tribunal erred in determining 30 years age of deceased and that apart, as per claim petition she was 28 years of age and on the day of recording her statement, she was 29 years of age. Therefore, keeping in view age of children and in totality of facts on record, this fact cannot be ruled out that in rural areas, marriage took place at an early age. 12. As regards income of deceased, there is nothing on record except statement of Smt. Parvati (AW 1) and this fact cannot be ruled out that he was skilled labourer engaged in profession of making shoes and even at relevant point of time, as per Government's notification prescribing minimum wages, for labourers like the deceased, daily wages prescribed was in between 70-80 rupees, which too stands revised from time to time. 13. 13. I am fortified with the view that those who are low paid person like present deceased with number of dependants, and looking to the financial liability of number of dependants in his family ordinarily cannot think over for their personal expenses. 14. 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 30 years of age and the accident is of March, 1999, 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 and in this view of matter, loss of annual income cannot be determined below Rs. 15,000 15. In view of settled legal position (supra) and taking note of the fact that the deceased Was 30 years of age and was a low paid skilled labourer, and the average age of an Indian which is considered to be atleast 70 years, multiplier of 18 would be appropriate in terms of Schedule appended to the Act. and 1 consider monthly income of deceased as Rs. 2.250 and after deduction of Rs. 250 towards his personal expenses in view of number of dependants, monthly dependency of the family is determined to Rs. 2,000. Accordingly total compensation under this head comes to Rs. 4,32,000 (2000 x 12 x 18). 16. As regards compensation towards loss of love and affection and consortium to wife and claimants, the Tribunal has not awarded a single penny under this head. Taking note of the age of deceased, his widow and minor children I deem it proper to award Rs. 10,000 as consortium to the wife as whatever amount is awarded under this head is only a solace to provide a lady, and Rs. 5,000 each to four minor children and to parents of deceased towards love and affection. Thus total enhanced amount under this head comes to Rs. 40,000 (Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 20,000 - (5000x4) + Rs. 10,000). 10,000 as consortium to the wife as whatever amount is awarded under this head is only a solace to provide a lady, and Rs. 5,000 each to four minor children and to parents of deceased towards love and affection. Thus total enhanced amount under this head comes to Rs. 40,000 (Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 20,000 - (5000x4) + Rs. 10,000). In all the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,73,000/(Rs. 4,32,000 + Rs. 40,000 + Rs. 1,000 as costs awarded by Tribunal). 17. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation for a sum of Rs. 2,22,000 (Rs. 4,73,000 minus Rs. 2,51,000/awarded vide impugned award) which shall carry interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment. Enhanced compensation with interest shall be deposited by the respondent Insurance Company through A/c payee bank draft/pay order before the Tribunal within one month. 18. 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.Appeal allowed. *******