1. Claiming enhanced compensation, this appeal has been filed by the first appellant, who is the widow and the second appellant who is the mother of one Ratan Kar, who died in a vehicular accident on 11.7.1997. 2. In support of the claim made, evidence was laid on behalf of the claimants/appellants before the learned Tribunal below to show that at the relevant time, the deceased, who was a vegetable vendor, was earning Rs. 2,500 per month. P.W. 1, i.e., the appellant No. 2 deposed the said fact.. The learned Tribunal notwithstanding the aforesaid evidence took the view that in the facts of the present case, it would be safer to hold that the precise income of the deceased was not known and, therefore, the notional income of Rs. 15,000 per annum as stipulated by the 2nd Schedule to the Act should be taken into account for determination of the compensation. On that basis, applying the multiplier of 18 in view of the fact that the deceased was 28 years old, the learned Tribunal after deducting l/3rd of the income awarded a total compensation package of Rs. 1,87,000 along with interest @ 12% from the date of presentation of the claim petition in favour of the claimants/appellants. Aggrieved and seeking enhanced compensation, this appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P. Gautam, learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance company. 4. Two points in the main have been urged on behalf of the appellants in the present appeal. The first point is that the learned Tribunal below committed errors apparent on the face of the record in not accepting the evidence of income as laid before the learned Tribunal by P.W. 1. Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged that P.W. 1 being the mother of the deceased can be expected to know the earnings of her son (deceased) .and, therefore, the evidence of P.W. 1 has sufficient credibility for acceptance. Additional, Sri Deb has argued that the evidence of P.W. 1 on the point of income of the deceased has not been challenged in cross-examination. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal erred in law in not acting on the said evidence of P.W.I and in proceeding to determine compensation on the basis of the notional income. Additional, Sri Deb has argued that the evidence of P.W. 1 on the point of income of the deceased has not been challenged in cross-examination. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal erred in law in not acting on the said evidence of P.W.I and in proceeding to determine compensation on the basis of the notional income. Alternatively, Sri Deb has argued that if this court is to accept the conclusion of the learned Tribunal on the point of income of the deceased, the deduction of 1/3rd of such income must be interfered with by this court. According to Sri Deb, under the provisions of 2nd Schedule to the Act, notional income is to be taken in cases where the deceased had no income whatsoever. If there was no income, the deceased would have no occasion to spend any amount on himself. It is therefore contended that the exclusion/deduction of 1/3rd of the notional income is not correct. 5. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants have met with stiff resistance offered by Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company. Sri Gautam has argued that except for the solitary statement of P.W. 1, there is no other evidence .on record in support of the income of the deceased. The evidence of P,W. 1 is not corroborated by any other cogent materials. No other acceptable evidence is also forthcoming with regard to the income of the deceased. In such circumstances, according to Mr. Gautam, the learned Tribunal was justified in proceeding to determine the compensation payable on the basis of notional income as fixed by the 2nd Schedule to the Act. Mr. Gautam has further submitted that the deduction of l/3rd of the income as personal expenses of the deceased is contemplated by the 2nd Schedule to the Act even in case of determination of compensation by reference to notional income and, therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal which needs correction at the hands of the court. 6. The rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties have received the due and anxious consideration of the court. The task assigned by the statute to the Claims Tribunal is to determine just and fair compensation that is payable to the claimants/appellants. 6. The rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties have received the due and anxious consideration of the court. The task assigned by the statute to the Claims Tribunal is to determine just and fair compensation that is payable to the claimants/appellants. Determination of what is just and fair compensation, would require the Tribunal, to reach a finding with regard to the income that the deceased or the injured may have had. The absence of a challenge to the claimed income in cross-examination by the insurance company must be necessarily viewed by the court in the above context. It is for the claimants to establish to the satisfaction of the learned Tribunal as to what income the deceased had at the time of his death. In the present case, except for the statement of the mother, no other evidence is forthcoming on this score. As to what would be the possible nature of such evidence would be speculation, perhaps the claimant should have examined some other persons including certain independent persons acquainted with the life style of the deceased in support of the claim of the income. In the above circumstances, if the learned Tribunal had thought it proper to take the notional income prescribed by the Act for the purpose of determination of compensation, it cannot be said that the course of action adopted was so inherently wrong that the appellate court must interfere. 7. This will bring the court to a consideration of the second argument advanced. The notional income of Rs. 15,000 per annum can be accepted in two situations. The first is where the claimants have admitted that the deceased had no income and the second is a situation whether he had some income but the precise quantum thereof cannot be determined. The applicability of the provisions of the Second Schedule prescribing notional income to either of the aforesaid two situations stems from beneficial nature of the legislation in question. The present case falls in the second category. The claimants/appellants themselves admitted that the deceased had some income which was claimed to be Rs. 2,500 per month. If that be so, it is difficult to visualize as to how the argument advanced by Sri Deb can merit approval of the court. In any event under the 2nd Schedule to the Act, deduction of 1/3rd of the notional income is also contemplated. 2,500 per month. If that be so, it is difficult to visualize as to how the argument advanced by Sri Deb can merit approval of the court. In any event under the 2nd Schedule to the Act, deduction of 1/3rd of the notional income is also contemplated. The entire 2nd schedule to the Act proceeds on a fair amount of surmises and guesswork and not on the basis of any arithmetical precision. But it has withstood the test of time though it provides a rough and ready measure of working out the just compensation payable. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, neither of the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants can be accepted by the court. However, before parting with the case, this court has noticed that though under the 2nd Schedule to the Act, compensation of Rs. 2,500 is awardable on account of loss of estate, the learned Tribunal has omitted to pay the said amount. I, therefore, direct that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,500 be paid to the claimants/appellants by the Insurer with interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition. Payment in terms of the present order will be made within three months from today. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed in the manner indicated