Judgment :- These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.1999 made in MCOP Nos.735/96 and 736/96 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panruti. .2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows: .On 08.09.1993 at about 10.00 a.m., when the deceased Ganesan was going by a cycle on the left hand side of the road near Lakshmipathy Chellammal Kalyana Mandapam at Panruti, a Police Van bearing Registration No.TDF 3145 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained injuries all over the body and was immediately admitted to the Cuddalore Government Hospital. Later, he was shifted to the General Hospital, Chennai and in spite of the treatment given to him, he died. 3. In CMA No.2152 of 2000, the first respondent is the wife of the deceased, the second, third and fourth respondents are the minor children of the deceased, fifth and sixth respondents are father and mother of the deceased and the seventh respondent is the sister of the deceased. In CMA No.2153 of 2000, the first and second respondents are the parents of the deceased, the third respondent is the sister of the deceased, fourth, sixth and seventh respondents are the minor children of the deceased and the fifth respondent is the wife of the deceased. .4. In MCOP No.735 of 1996, the claimants have claimed Rs.2,00,000/-as compensation before the Tribunal. In MCOP No.736 of 1996, the claimants have claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,70,000/-with interest at 12% as against Rs.2,00,000/-claimed by the claimants in MCOP No.735 of 1996. Also the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- with interest at 12% against Rs.1,00,000/-claimed by the claimants in MCOP No.736 of 1996. Aggrieved by the awards, the appellant Superintendent of Police has filed the present appeals. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the deceased was riding the cycle in a drunken mood and dashed against the Police Van and hence the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. It is also further submitted that the Tribunal awarded an excessive compensation which is without basis and justification. It is also submitted that the Tribunal had not considered the relevant materials before passing the awards. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is wrong, illegal, without basis and justification. 6. It is also further submitted that the Tribunal awarded an excessive compensation which is without basis and justification. It is also submitted that the Tribunal had not considered the relevant materials before passing the awards. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is wrong, illegal, without basis and justification. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents /claimants submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant facts and materials and awarded a just and fair compensation. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is in conformity with law. .7. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, it is stated that the deceased was a carpenter and was earning Rs.80/-per day. The Tribunal considered the arguments and came to the conclusion that the carpenter would have earned Rs.50/- per day and determined Rs.1,500/- as his monthly income. Therefore, he would have earned Rs.18,000/- as yearly income. The age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of accident. On the side of the respondents / claimants, Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were marked and witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined. No exhibits marked or witnesses produced on the side of the appellant. Taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences, the Tribunal thought it fit to award a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- with 12% interest as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-made by the claimants in MCOP No.735 of 1996 towards loss of earning, medical expenses, pain and suffering and also funeral expenses of the deceased and Rs.40,000/-with 12% interest as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- in MCOP No.736 of 1996 towards loss of income to the dependants of the deceased, medical expenses, pain and suffering and funeral expenses. The appellant had not produced any materials or evidence to prove that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are excessive. Also, the appellant had not stated in the grounds of appeal, any compelling reason to prove that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are excessive and unjust. 8. The Tribunal is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount has to be just and reasonable. It is very difficult for the court that the compensation for loss of life or limb can hardly be measured in golden scales. At the same time, the compensation amount should not be excessive and unreasonable. The amount has to be just and reasonable. It is very difficult for the court that the compensation for loss of life or limb can hardly be measured in golden scales. At the same time, the compensation amount should not be excessive and unreasonable. The compensation must be just and fair and the same should not be a source of profit. It also should not be a pittance. The Tribunal has the duty to weigh the various factors and quantifying the amount of compensation. There is no magical formula to determine the exact compensation for the loss of life and loss of limb. It is extremely difficult to determine the damages for loss of human life or loss of limb. 9. Taking into consideration the total circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the award made by the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence and there is no error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. No further material evidence or compelling reasons given by the appellant to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs.