Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant appeal has been field by Insurance Company questioning quantum of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City Jaipur ("Tribunal") vide award dated 07.08.2001 in MACT Case No. 157/2000. 2. At the outset, Counsel for appellant pointed out that permission has been granted under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act") by the Tribunal vide order dated 03.04.2001 and vide order dated 21.02.2002 this Court has stayed 50% of the impugned award. 3. Claimants are widow, three minor children of deceased Laduram, aged 40 years, working as Mistri on daily wages basis, who died on 212.1999 in accident while going alongwith his friend, Satyanarain on bicycle to Kalwad Road via Niwaru road byepass, when reached near Roop Vermas Farm, a Trolla No. RJ-01/-G/3527 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, struck his cycle thereby deceased was crushed by wheels of the offending vehicle. 4. The Tribunal after taking into consideration material on record, including salary certificate (Exhibit 10) issued by Satya Narain (AW. 2) who was Contractor, assessed his monthly income of Rs. 4,500/-and after 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses, Rs. 3,000/-was determined monthly financial dependency of the family and after applying multiplier of 15 looking to age of deceased, awarded total compensation of Rs. 5.65 lacs including Rs. 25,000/-towards non-pecuniary losses, with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of claim petition till its actual payment vide impugned award. 5. Shri Virendra Agrawal, Counsel for appellant (Insurance Company) has urged that the Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate evidence of Gangadevi (AW. 1) who though deposed that her husband was working as Mistri on daily wages basis and used to work with contractor Padamlal (AW. 3) for last 6-7 months but in cross examination, admitted that salary certificate (Exhibit-3) produced by her was got typed and prepared by her lawyer, which according to Counsel, shows that no credence could have been put to Exhibit 10 on the basis of which the Tribunal assessed financial dependency of the family while determining income of the deceased whereas Contractor Padamlal (AW. 3) who though deposed about issuance of salary certificate (Exhibit-10) but did not place other material on record to corroborate his version while in cross examination admitted that neither there is dispatch number on Exhibit 10, nor able to show any supporting record being maintained by him for engaging Labourer like deceased and further deposed that he always used to take private contracts but no material was placed to justify about source of income as referred in Exhibit 10 or about the contracts undertaken by him, in such circumstances, according to Counsel, premises on which the Tribunal proceeded to determine monthly income of deceased as Rs. 4,500/-was irrational and hence impugned compensation being on much higher side requires interference by this Court. 6. Per contra, Counsel for respondent claimants urged that once salary certificate (Exhibit-10) has been produced having been issued by Contractor, who too deposed in his statement to prove Exhibit-10 that Rs. 4,500/-were being paid as monthly salary to deceased and nothing material to contradict above version has been placed on record in rebuttal by non-claimants - in the absence whereof no error was committed by Tribunal while determining Rs. 4,500/-as monthly income of deceased and accordingly, the impugned award requires no interference by this Court. 7. Counsel for claimants further contended that the deceased was only 40 years of age having future prospects to his credit, which the Tribunal failed to consider this aspect of matter while computation of his income, so also proper application of multiplier looking to his age as per 2nd Schedule of the Act. To support his contentions, Counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Smt. Vibha Seth vs. Jai Kishan Tewari, 1999 WLC (UC) 709 and RSRTC vs. Smt. Baby, 2001 ACTC 258. 7. 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. 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 .” 8. 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 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. 9. 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. 10. It is clear from a reading of the impugned award that in instant case, this fact remained undisputed that deceased was working as Mistri on daily wages and about his income proof , even statement of Padamlal (AW .3) does not inspire any confidence. That apart, Padamlal (AW . 10. It is clear from a reading of the impugned award that in instant case, this fact remained undisputed that deceased was working as Mistri on daily wages and about his income proof , even statement of Padamlal (AW .3) does not inspire any confidence. That apart, Padamlal (AW . 3), himself admitted to have been working as private contractor and because of his ill-health, he was not working as contractor for 8-9 months, therefore, was not able to show any team of labourers to carry out contract work, except the deceased, for whom also no document or material was placed to show that he was ever engaged by him (AW. 3). 11. Even Ganga Devi (AW. 1) contrarily during cross-examination admitted that she got salary certificate (Exhibit 10) prepared on instructions and typed by her lawyer. The Tribunal while arriving at conclusion to award compensation, has not cared to consider aforesaid version of witnesses which casts aspersions on their oral testimony and makes significant document of salary certificate (Exhibit-10) doubtful thereby no much credence can be given to adjudge income and apply proper method for calculating just compensation. 12. It is true that Courts have been extending benevolence and ignoring technical requirements of proof besides hyper technicalities of law in likewise cases to be dealt with under benevolent legislations, it cannot be forgotten that things are realized that fundamental and foundational facts to establish entitlement of claimants to just compensation so also quantum whereof , have to be proved by legal evidence which is minimum requirement expected of the concerned. That apart, no doubt, there is no evidence led on either side in defence to rebut evidence of claimants; but it is trite that simply on that basis, word of mouth of claimants cannot be accepted on face value and the evidence led on record has to be appreciated in a rational and reasonable basis. 13. Be that as it may, on critical analysis of material on record, especially admissions wrung out of statement of Gangadevi (AW. 1) and Padamlal (AW. 3) if taken on its face value, though as analysed (Supra), they failed to legally prove salary certificate (Exhibit-10), but this fact remains precisely clear that the deceased was working as Mistri on daily wages basis in order to earn his livelihood for maintenance of his family. 14. 1) and Padamlal (AW. 3) if taken on its face value, though as analysed (Supra), they failed to legally prove salary certificate (Exhibit-10), but this fact remains precisely clear that the deceased was working as Mistri on daily wages basis in order to earn his livelihood for maintenance of his family. 14. The material on record 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 the deceased had source of income for livelihood of his family being engaged in profession of masonry work, may be on private contract basis to work as daily wages Mistri, which can be good attending circumstance to determine just compensation. 15. In the instant case, it cannot, therefore, be ruled out that the deceased had some expertise nature of masonry work as of mistry. However, keeping that in view, and taking into consideration over all conspectus of the material on record and other ancillary aspect, I consider Rs. 2,400/-as monthly income of the deceased, which in my opinion, commensurate with Government notification prescribing daily wages in respect of skilled labourer and not the income assessed by the Tribunal, which is irrational in view of material on record and on much higher side; and after 1/3rd deduction towards his personal expenses, dependency of family comes to Rs. 1,600/-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. 2,88,000/-(1600x12x15) towards loss of income qua dependency of the family. Judgment s, on which reliance has been placed by Counsel for respondents are of no assistance in facts situation of present case. 16. As regards compensation towards love, affection and consortium, the same has adequately been awarded and it does not require any interference. 17. Thus, in all claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,13,000/-(2,88,000/-+ Rs. 25,000/-towards consortium, love and affection as awarded vide impugned award), which shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till actual payment. 18. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 3,13,000/-alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till actual payment, instead of Rs. 5,65,000/-. 18. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 3,13,000/-alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till actual payment, instead of Rs. 5,65,000/-. Since, 50% of impugned award remained stayed vide order date 21/02/2002 of this Court, the Insurance Company will be at liberty to withdraw remaining amount of compensation awarded vide impugned award. To the above extent, impugned award stands modified. No order as to costs.