Prabir Kumar Samanta, Aniruddha Bose ( 1 ) THIS Misc. Appeal is by the claimant-appellant against the judgment and award dated 3. 7. 2001 passed in MAC. Case No. 25 of 2000 by the motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalpaiguri. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid claim case in short are that on 4. 11. 1999 a mini bus having Registration No. WB-71-7113 coming at a very high speed hit the claimant-appellant as a result of which he sustained severe injuries, he was removed to a hospital and was treated for quite sometime at Siliguri Hospital. Because of such injury his right leg was amputed. ( 2 ) BEFORE the Claims Tribunal the involvement of the offending vehicle and the rash and negligent driving of the same by its driver were proved. In this appeal the respondent-Insurance Company has not disputed the findings so made by the Claims Tribunal in respect thereof. It is also not in dispute that the said offending vehicle was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company at the relevant point of time. The learned Claims Tribunal determined the compensation payable to the claimant at Rs. 94,000/- in total on the basis of the notional income of the victim at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. ( 3 ) THIS award has been challenged on behalf of the claimant upon contention that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have determined the pecuniary damages i. e. the loss of earnings on the basis of the income as adduced by the claimant himself in his evidence and not on the basis of notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. ( 4 ) THE claimant-appellant has deposed by saying that he used to collect milk from the Basti and go out by cycle to sell the same to various customers. His income was at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month. P. W. 2 who also suffered injury in the same accident has deposed by saying that the victim used to deal in milk and he used to collect milk and supply to his customers. RW. 3, a neighbour of the victim, who is a disinterested person corroborated such evidence of the victim by stating that the victim used to deal in milk by collecting the same and then supplying it to others. No witness has been examined on behalf of respondent-Insurance Company. RW. 3, a neighbour of the victim, who is a disinterested person corroborated such evidence of the victim by stating that the victim used to deal in milk by collecting the same and then supplying it to others. No witness has been examined on behalf of respondent-Insurance Company. Upon scrutiny of all the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant, it becomes clear that the victim had a milk business which he carried on by collecting a bulk quantity from different sources and then supplying it to his customers. In view of such evidence it cannot be held that the victim had no income at all for which the compensation ought to have been determined on the basis of the national income at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The claimant-victim in his claim petition has stated that he used to earn at the rate of Rs. 3,600/-per month. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that he had a earning of rs. 3,500/- per month out of his milk business. Although in his cross-examination he has stated that he used to supply 60 kgs. of milk per day and earn profit of Rs. 3/- per kg. but at the same time it should be borne in mind that in business one cannot have a regular fixed profit earnings. It is also not expected of a person of this nature to make statement of his income with mathematical precision. The evidence so adduced by the claimant-appellant at least suggests that he had some income out of his business and such income was at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month in average as per his deposition. ( 5 ) THE Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in (2003)2 t. A. C. 435 (Cal) Smt. Bilasini Mondal v. National Insurance Company Limited and Anr. accepted the evidence of a fish seller about his earning at the rate of rs. 3,000/- per month on the reasoning that the oral evidence is also a piece of evidence. Merely because no documentary evidence in support thereof cannot be produced, such oral evidence cannot be rejected outright unless, it is found unreliable for any other reason. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observation by the Division Bench of this Court. 3,000/- per month on the reasoning that the oral evidence is also a piece of evidence. Merely because no documentary evidence in support thereof cannot be produced, such oral evidence cannot be rejected outright unless, it is found unreliable for any other reason. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observation by the Division Bench of this Court. In the case in hand, while it has been firmly established in evidence that the claimant-victim had a milk business at the relevant point of time, his evidence of his earning at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month should not be discarded only because he has failed to produce any document thereof or stated something in his cross-examination which is in the nature of minor discrepancy. We, therefore, accept the income of the claimant-victim at Rs. 3,500/- per month. ( 6 ) EVIDENTLY, the victim was aged about 24 years at the date of the accident. For the purpose of determination of loss of earnings a multiplier of 17 is applicable on such income of the victim as per the 2nd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which we adopt as being the safer guidance for the purpose of determination of such loss. Thus the loss of earnings suffered by the claimant-appellant stands at Rs. 5,71,200/- because of the injury which made him. 80% permanently disabled as per the medical certificate. ( 7 ) AS per the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1995)1 scc 551 :1995 WBLR (SC) 127, R. D. Hattangadi v. M/s. Pest Control (India)pvt. Ltd. and Ors. , the claimant-appellant is further entitled to a compensation for non-pecuniary damages such as for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, loss of amenities of life, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. It has been held therein that for the determination of non-pecuniary damages on such accounts so me guess work is permissible as the same cannot in any event be determined with mathematical precision. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of the injury suffered by the victim and the period of his life he is expected to live, we determine the compensation payable for non-pecuniary damages at a lump sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. ( 8 ) FROM the materials on record it appears that the claimant-victim incurred medical expenses for a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. ( 8 ) FROM the materials on record it appears that the claimant-victim incurred medical expenses for a sum of Rs. 5,700/ -. We, therefore, grant compensation on such account at Rs. 6,000/- by rounding of the figure as actually spent by the victim. The learned Claims Tribunal has further granted a sum of Rs. 800/- being conveyance charges which the claimant-appellant incurred during his treatment. We also affirm the said grant. Thus the total compensation payable to the claimant-appellant would be Rs. 6,28,000/ -. ( 9 ) THE judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal is therefore set aside and we determine the total compensation payable to the claimant-appellant in the above claim case at Rs. 6,28,000/- by amending the claim petition on the basis of the amendment application filed by the claimant-appellant and on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Ors. , reported in AIR 2003 SC 674 : (2003)1 WBLR (SC) 774. ( 10 ) THE respondent-Insurance Company is accordingly directed to pay the above amount less the amount already paid along with an interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the said balance amount from the date of filing of the application till payment which should be made peremptorily by issuing an Account Payee Cheque in favour of the claimant-appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. ( 11 ) THE appeal and the application are accordingly allowed. ( 12 ) THE lower Court records be sent down immediately.