JUDGMENT 1. This Misc. Appeal is directed against the judgment/award impugned dated 4.4.2007 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-A.D.J. F.T.C., Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro in M.V. Claim Case No. 94 of 2004 against the inadequate compensation granted to the appellants-claimants by way of final award under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988. 2. The claimants had demanded a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- on the accidental death of Prabhat Kumar Mishra aged about 26 years who was the son of the applicant No. 1 and the brother of the applicant No. 2. 3. The brief fact of the case was that in the evening of 22.08.2002 Prabhat Kumar Mishra (since deceased) was returning to his home on his scooter and as soon as he reached near the village Bakaspura i.e. Barkban at about 7 p.m., a truck bearing registration No. BR 17G-5607 being driven rashly and negligently dashed the scooter as a result of which Prabhat Kumar Mishra sustained grievous injuries and he was removed to Referal Hosptial, Jaina More where his statement was recorded but he succumbed his injuries on 25.08.2002 at Bokaro General Hospital where he was ultimately removed for the better management of his injuries. The truck in question was insured with the O.P. No. 3 (The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Bokaro Steel City Sector IV, Bokaro). 4. The claim of the appellants that the deceased was having Masters degree in Arts (Ext. 6) was not disputed and similarly he was called for to attend the Selection Board for recruitment of Sub-Inspector in India Reserve Battalion, Calcutta was also not disputed (Ext. 8) but the Tribunal find that there was no proof of the income of the deceased prior to his accidental death and therefore his income was assessed on the notional of Rs. 15,000/- and by using the multiplier of 18 the total amount was assessed at Rs. 2,70,000/- after deduction of the statutory 1/3rd amount the Tribunal assessed the total compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- with the simple interest @ 6% per annum till the realization after deducting Rs. 50,000/- being the ad interim compensation under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. 5. 2,70,000/- after deduction of the statutory 1/3rd amount the Tribunal assessed the total compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- with the simple interest @ 6% per annum till the realization after deducting Rs. 50,000/- being the ad interim compensation under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment/award on the ground that the specific case of the appellants before the Tribunal was that the deceased was working under contractor prior to his death and by virtue of that he was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month besides his income to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- from private tuition. The Tribunal further ignored that the deceased was an M.A. with a bright future and career and his salary might have been fixed at Rs. 25,000/- per month on his joining in the Reserve Battalion on the post of Sub-Inspector of police. 6. Heard Mr. D.C. Ghose, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, who opposed the contention that no documentary evidence was adduced before the Tribunal in support of the fact that his earning from the contract work was Rs. 4,500/- and he used to earn Rs. 5,000/- from private tuition and in absence of any documentary evidence the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis. 7. Having heard the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, we are conscious about the fact that the deceased was holding a Masters degree in Arts and that he had received call letter to attend selection process for the post of Sub-Inspector in the India Reserve Battalion which speaks a lot about the future prospects of the deceased. We find that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis. In our view, under such situation when the deceased was holding a Masters degree in Arts having bright career it was not proper for the Tribunal to assess the income of the deceased in the manner the income is assessed to a person (deceased) having no income. 8. Though the claim of the appellants before the Tribunal was Rs. 8,00,000/- on the ground that after selection of the deceased his salary would have been Rs. 25,000/- per month but such argument is not tenable. 8. Though the claim of the appellants before the Tribunal was Rs. 8,00,000/- on the ground that after selection of the deceased his salary would have been Rs. 25,000/- per month but such argument is not tenable. The appellant No. 1 Shankutala Devi is the mother and the petitioner No. 2 Abhishekh Kumar is the brother of the deceased and according to them they were dependent upon the earning of the deceased. The Counsel for the appellant failed to explain as to why the father of the deceased was not impleaded though he is alive. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking the considered view, we find that compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- in lump sum to the claimants would meet the ends of justice to which the learned Counsel for the appellants very fairly concedes. In the circumstances, the O.P. No. 2 (Oriental Insurance Company Limited) is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Three lakh fifty thousand only) to the appellants in lump sum minus the amount already paid to the appellants within four weeks of this order. The impugned award is modified in the manner indicated above.