Judgment : TAPAN KUMAR DUTT, J. (1) HEARD the learned Advocates for the respective parties. The facts of the case very briefly are as follows:- The appellants filed an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being M. A. C. No. 50 of 2004 in the Court of the learned Motor Accidents claims Tribunal concerned at Howrah. A sum of Rs. 14,40,000/- plus interest was claimed as compensation in the said application. The allegation in the said application was that on 16. 12. 2003 the victim was returning from Amtala along Diamond Harbour Road by riding his Motor bike and at about 10. 10 p. m. the offending Truck bearing Registration No. WBQ-5776, coming from the opposite direction, dashed the Motor bike of the victim, who is the husband of theappellant No. 1, father of the appellant Nos. 1 A, B and C and son of the appellant No. 2, and the victim died owing to the said accident. It was alleged in the said application thatthe victim was 35 years of age, the victim was a businessman and had a monthly income of Rs. 10,500/- and the victim was also an Income Tax payer. The said application for the compensation was contested by the respondent No. 1 (Insurance Company) but the said application was not contested by the owner of the offending vehicle, that is, the respondent No. 2. (2) THE learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, First Court, howrah by his judgment dated 29th August, 2005 allowed the said M. A. C. Case on contest against the Insurance Company and ex-parte against the owner of the offending vehicle. The respondent No. 1 was directed to issue two A/c Payee Cheques-one in the name of the appellant No. 2 to the tune of Ra. 20,000/- and another cheque in the name of the appellant No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 1,19,500/- within 40 days from the date of the judgment, failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 5% per annum till realisation. The learned Tribunal further give the direction, inter alia, that the appellant No. 1 shall invest Rs. 60,000/- (Rs. 1,19,500/- within 40 days from the date of the judgment, failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 5% per annum till realisation. The learned Tribunal further give the direction, inter alia, that the appellant No. 1 shall invest Rs. 60,000/- (Rs. 20,000/-for each of the children of the victim) either in the Post Office or in a Nationalised Bank in any fixed deposit scheme or other scheme within one month from the date of receipt of the Account Payee Cheque. The learned Tribunal held that the driver of the offending Truck was rashly and negligently driving which caused the death of the victim. (3) THE learned Advocates who argued in the Appeal before us made their respective submissions on the question of quantum of compensation that could have been awarded to the claimants. The entire argument before this Court was restricted to the question of quantum of compensation that the learned Tribunal could have awarded in the present case. It appears from impugned judgment that a discrepancy has been recorded in so far as the age of the victim is concerned inasmuch as in the post mortem report the age has been shown as 35 years but the appellant No. 1 in her evidence stated that the age of the victim was 43 years at the time of the accident and the learned Tribunal relied upon the evidence of the appellant No. 1 and held that the age of the victim was 43 years at the time of the accident and the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 in calculating the compensation. (4) IT appears that a copy of an Income Tax Return in respect of the assessment year 2003-04 of the victim came up for consideration and in the said Income Tax Return the gross total income of the victim was shown as rs. 1,26,017/-and net tax payable by the victim for the relevant financial year was Rs. 14,444/ -. It also appears from the materials-on-record that the victim had a business of garments and in the said Income Tax Return the income shown is under the category of "income from Business or Profession". 1,26,017/-and net tax payable by the victim for the relevant financial year was Rs. 14,444/ -. It also appears from the materials-on-record that the victim had a business of garments and in the said Income Tax Return the income shown is under the category of "income from Business or Profession". The learned Tribunal found in the impugned order that the tax payable by the said victim was on the basis of self-assessment and that the said Income Tax return was not in the name of the business but it was in the name of the victim. The learned Tribunal was of the view that sufficient materials have not been placed on record to come to a positive finding as regards the actual income of the victim. The learned Tribunal has observed in the impugned order that it failed to understand why only one Saral Form was given when at least. 7/8 forms were expected in order to ascertain the actual income (yearly)of the victim and that no monthly income certificate is coming from the business of the victim. The learned Tribunal concluded that it has no direct evidence at hand to ascertain the actual yearly income of the victim and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the principle of notional income is to be applied. The learned Tribunal held the notional income of the victim was rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 15,000/-1/3rd of Rs. 15,000/- i. e. , Rs. 5,000/-) and applied the multiplier of 13. The learned Tribunal also granted certain amounts on other accounts as contained in the impugned order. (5) IT appears to us that the real dispute between the parties is the dispute in the matter of fixation of annual income of the victim before the victims death. (6) ACCORDING to the appellants learned Counsel the gross income from the business of the victim was Rs. 1,26,017/-and that 50% of such amount should be considered as future income and after deducting the income tax and life insurance premium the resultant amount should be taken to be the income of the victim from which a deduction of 1/3rd of the said amount can be made and the multiplier of 15 should be applied. 1,26,017/-and that 50% of such amount should be considered as future income and after deducting the income tax and life insurance premium the resultant amount should be taken to be the income of the victim from which a deduction of 1/3rd of the said amount can be made and the multiplier of 15 should be applied. (7) THE said learned Counsel cited a decision reported at 2003 (3) TAC 284 (SC) (Divisional Controller, K. S. R. T. C. v. Mahadeva Shetty and Anr.)wherefrom it appears that the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the "statutory provisions clearly indicate the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the 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 the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. " (8) THE next decision cited on behalf of the appellants is reported at 2002 (2) TAC 669 (Del.) (Pragya Chopra and Anr. v. Ranjit Singh and Ors.). The honble Court in the said reported decision was pleased to hold "that the income of the deceased at the time of his death alone should not be the. sole criteria for ascertaining the loss to the family of the deceased. The prospects of future increase in the income of the deceased also have to be taken into consideration and thereafter by adding the present income with the expected future income at the end of his career, 50 per cent thereof can be taken as the average income for the rest of his career. " And that in the case of a businessman, "the expected increase in income would depend on various factors like nature of his business, investment made, money market conditions, general economic climate etc. " (9) ANOTHER decision cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants is the one reported at 2004 ACJ 448 (Asha and Ors. v. United india Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.). " (9) ANOTHER decision cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants is the one reported at 2004 ACJ 448 (Asha and Ors. v. United india Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.). It appears that the said reported case cannot be of any assistance to the appellants in the present case since the facts and circumstances of the said reported case were quite different. In the said reported case the question with regard to the maintainability of an appeal was raised and the victim concerned in the said reported case was a salaried person. (10) THE next judgment cited on behalf of the appellants is the one reported at 2003 (2) TAC 435 (Cal.) (Smt. Bilasini Mondal v. National Insurance Company limited and Anr.). In the said reported case, evidence was adduced by the claimant that the victim who was a fish seller used to earn Rs. 3,000/-per month but since in support of such evidence no documentary evidence could be produced the learned Tribunal was of the view that the claimant has not been able to prove such fact and, accordingly, the learned Tribunal determined the sum of Rs. 15,000/-per annum as the notional income of the deceased. The honble Court held that the oral evidence was also a piece of evidence and such oral evidence was overlooked by the learned Tribunal and merely because no documentary evidence in support thereof can be produced, such oral evidence cannot be rejected outright unless it is found unreliable for any other reason. The Honble Division Bench in the said reported case held that there was no reason to reject the evidence of the claimant as regards the monthly income of the deceased, namely, Rs. 3,000/- per month, specially in the absence of any contra-evidence. On such basis the appeal before the said honble Division Bench was disposed of. (11) THE learned Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company cited a decision reported at 2005 (3) TAC 766 (Cal.) (Smt. Sursati Devi Yadav and ors. v. M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. andanr.). In the said reported case, it appears, the fact was that an Income Tax Return of the victim was filed and was also marked as an Exhibit and from the said return the total income of the victim appeared to be Rs. 37,450/-but such return was not accepted by the Tribunal. v. M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. andanr.). In the said reported case, it appears, the fact was that an Income Tax Return of the victim was filed and was also marked as an Exhibit and from the said return the total income of the victim appeared to be Rs. 37,450/-but such return was not accepted by the Tribunal. It also appears from the facts of the said reported case that the concerned Income Tax Officer was directed to produce the original records and the concerned Income Tax Officer had, accordingly, filed an affidavit making certain disclosures wherefrom it appeared that the claim of the claimants did not tally with the records of the Income Tax Office and the signature of the Income Tax Officer shown as Ext. 2 in the said reported case was also said to be not a signature of any Officer of the Department. The honble Court could not rely upon the said Ext. 2. The Honble Court was pleased to hold that the decision of the Tribunal to calculate the compensation on the basis of notional income was correct. (12) IN the instant case, it appears that even though a copy of the income Tax Return was filed on behalf of the appellants/claimants but none from the Income Tax Office was called upon to prove the authenticity of such return. The learned Tribunal had rightly observed that it is not clear as to how the payment of the alleged self-assessed tax of Rs. 14,444/- was paid by the victim and that there is no direct evidence at hand to ascertain the actual yearly income of the victim. It is not the case of any party to the litigation that any attempt was made by any party to have the original Income Tax return of the victim placed before the learned Tribunal. Even, no challan showing payment of the said self-assessed tax was produced before the learned Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the appellants, by referring to copies of life insurance premium receipts appearing at pages 41 and 42 of the paper book, submitted that the victim who was paying life insurance premium of rs. 20,569/-yearly and another life insurance premium of Rs. 2,241/- quarterly, must have been earning a very substantial income. The learned Counsel for the appellants, by referring to copies of life insurance premium receipts appearing at pages 41 and 42 of the paper book, submitted that the victim who was paying life insurance premium of rs. 20,569/-yearly and another life insurance premium of Rs. 2,241/- quarterly, must have been earning a very substantial income. This argument of the said learned Counsel is not acceptable to us since if such argument is to be accepted then the Court will have to proceed on that basis of surmises and conjectures. This Court cannot proceed on the basis of surmises and conjectures. (13) THIS Court finds that the amount of compensation, as suggested by the learned Counsel for the appellants, cannot be awarded since the very basis of arriving at the amount of compensation suggested on behalf of the appellants is not acceptable because this Court finds difficulty in proceeding on the basis of the income of the victim shown in the copy of the purported income Tax Return the authenticity of which has not been established. Since the copy of the purported Incometax Return of the victim could not be relied upon by the learned Tribunal and there being no material-on-record to prove the actual income of the victim, the learned Tribunal had to consider the notional income of the victim. The prospect of future income of the deceased cannot be calculated since the actual income of the deceased just before his death cannot be ascertained. The P. W. 1 stated in her evidence by affidavit that the deceased paid income tax of Rs. 14,444/- during the year on a net total income of Rs. 1,26,017/-, but such statement was on the basis,of the purported income tax return which cannot be relied upon for reasons aforesaid. (14) THUS, after hearing submissions of the learned Advocates of the respective parties and after considering the evidence placed before the tribunal, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal did not commit any mistake in accepting Rs. 10,000/- as the basis for calculation of compensation amount payable to the claimants on account of the death of the victim by the accident involving offending vehicle, but, we do not accept the finding of the learned Tribunal in the matter of application of multiplier 13 in coming to the calculation of total compensation payable to the claimants. 10,000/- as the basis for calculation of compensation amount payable to the claimants on account of the death of the victim by the accident involving offending vehicle, but, we do not accept the finding of the learned Tribunal in the matter of application of multiplier 13 in coming to the calculation of total compensation payable to the claimants. From the judgment of the learned Tribunal impugned in this appeal, we find that the learned tribunal accepted age of the victim at the time of his death as 43 relying on the oral testimony of victims wife as P. W. 1 and in that case as per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 multiplier should be 15 and not 13 and naturally, this part of the findings of the learned Tribunal cannot be supported. Thus, in our view the total compensation amount should be Rs. 10,000/- multiplied by 15 plus Rs. 9,500/- equal to Rs. 1,59,500/ -. (15) WE also find from the impugned judgment that the learned Tribunal did not take into account the provision of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles act in the matter of payment of interest on the compensation amount and we feel that under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants are also entitled to get interest on the compensation amount from a date to be fixed by the Tribunal as per Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in the facts and circumstances of the present case we hold that the claimants should get 6% simple interest annually on the total compensation amount of rs. 1,59,500/-from the date of presentation of the application before the tribunal which was 11th February, 2004 till the amount is actually paid by the insurance company. (16) IN the light of our above discussion, we are inclined to allow this appeal in part and we modify the order of the learned Tribunal to this extent that the appellants are entitled to get a total compensation amount of rs. 1,59,500/-together with 6% simple interest per annum on the compensation amount with effect from 11th February, 2004 till the amount is paid by the insurance company and we direct the insurance company to pay the amount within two months from this order failing which the appellants are at liberty to start execution proceeding against the insurance company before the learned Tribunal. (17) THERE will be no order as to costs.