JUDGMENT Honble Amitava Lala, J.—This appeal is arising out of judgment and order dated 21st March, 2009 passed by the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mathura. The awarded amount of compensation is Rs. 12,45,435/- along with interest to be paid by the insurance company to the claimants. 2. On 25th December, 2007 at about 5.00 A.M. the deceased was travelling on Delhi-Mathura National Highway No. 2 by his Indica Car while he met with an accident by Tata 709 No. U.P. 86 9598 coming from the opposite direction. Deceased suffered injuries and later on expired. Allegation of rash and negligent driving was made. First Information Report was lodged. Enquiry was made. Site plan was prepared by the police. Charge-sheet was filed against the driver. The claimants are wife, son, daughter and mother of the deceased. At the time of death the deceased was 44 years of age. Income tax return of the deceased was considered by the Tribunal. Multiplier of 15 has been used to come to an appropriate determination of compensation. 3. Though owner of the vehicle of Tata 709 No. U.P. 86 9598 filed his written statement taking the plea that the alleged accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. But inspite of grant of leave to the insurance company to contest the proceeding under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the Act), no ground of contributory negligence has been taken in their written statement. No issue has been framed to that extent. Upon going through the site plan prepared by the police it is a clear case of total negligence on the part of the concerned vehicle. So far as the site plan is concerned, as prepared by the police, has its face value for the purpose of satisfaction of the Tribunal in the summary proceeding for the purpose of determination of compensation as held in First Appeal From Order No. 1788 of 2009 (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Noor Jahan and others). 4. Upon hearing the arguments, as advanced by the appellant insurance company herein, it appears to us that apart from contributory negligence, a further question has been raised by saying that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side. 4. Upon hearing the arguments, as advanced by the appellant insurance company herein, it appears to us that apart from contributory negligence, a further question has been raised by saying that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company, wrong multiplier has been applied and the gross income, as per the income tax return, is taken into account to quantify the quantum. 5. According to us, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation. It has been legislated to give benefit to the victim who suffered injury or the family members of the deceased. The objects and reasons of the Act have prescribed the same. Therefore, when the intention of the legislature is to give benefit and not to withhold or curtail it unnecessarily, it is duty incumbent upon the law courts and/or Tribunal to follow the same. Interpretation of law will come forward when the law is not specific or there is a necessity to fulfil the grey area. But when the law is specific, interpretation of law gets back seat. The Motor Vehicles Act is such Act, specific about determination and payment of compensation to the claimant/s. Therefore, the greater amount of latitude is to be shown towards payment of compensation to the claimants rather than withholding it taking disadvantageous portions of law. Even if law is not specific but requires interpretation, yet the law courts and tribunal should follow the skim of the Act to fulfil grey areas. General principle of law may not overlap special features of law. Surprisingly, in the recent days, we get various unnecessary interpretations of such law by the law courts treating insurance companies at par with the victim or family members of the deceased. What is the basis of such inference is unknown to us. We have given anxious thought to find out the basis. One basis might be misuse of public money when the other is fraudulent practice by the claimant/s to obtain the compensation. Therefore, we want to clarify the position in this regard. Money of the insurance company cannot be the public money at all. Public money means the amounts which are being collected by the Government by way of Cess, Taxes, Charges, Fees and various methods to accommodate certain amount of revenue from the people for the purpose of utilizing in public purpose. Money of the insurance company cannot be the public money at all. Public money means the amounts which are being collected by the Government by way of Cess, Taxes, Charges, Fees and various methods to accommodate certain amount of revenue from the people for the purpose of utilizing in public purpose. But the money collected by the insurance company from an individual by way of premium is business as per contract between them and the owner/s of the vehicle at their risk and responsibility which cannot be said to be public money at all. They are not doing any charity. Several persons are giving premium to one insurance company, which are being collected for the purpose of business out of the same and in the case of accident, one is given benefit. We are not aware about the credit and debit of the insurance companies being earnings by way of premiums and payment by way of compensation as per the respective balance sheets per year but to stop the illogical arguments, Court can call upon the insurance companies to produce their balance sheets of the respective years to know whether the insurance companies faced any loss in their business or not. Now a days private insurance companies are also allowed to do similar business. Therefore, it is further clear that the income of the insurance companies cannot be held to be public money. Insurance is a compulsory document for the purpose of running the vehicle on the road. Whenever anyone wants to purchase the vehicle, it is duty of the dealer to get signature on the insurance document of an insurance company. Therefore, their earnings are secured. Moreover, if money is collected for the purpose and used for such purpose it cannot be said to be misused at all. These wrong impressions are unfortunately carried by various law courts now adays which unnecessarily increasing number of disputes. Irrespective of the face value of the case or merits and demerits, it has become practice to cite such judgments to overrule the settled principle of law. Sometimes Law courts are taking different views purely on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case, which under no circumstances can be treated to be ratio decidendi. Thus, the first basis of such inference cannot be sustainable at all. 6. Sometimes Law courts are taking different views purely on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case, which under no circumstances can be treated to be ratio decidendi. Thus, the first basis of such inference cannot be sustainable at all. 6. So far as the second basis i.e. question of fraud is concerned, we say that unless fraud is established, nobody can say that fraud is committed. Fraud vitiates the entire proceeding. Therefore, if one wants to allege about fraud, he must be sincere about its establishment. Moreover, fraud is a exception but not the general rule of law. The Act itself has made various protections apart from general principles of law. But one has to remember that when the Court proceeds with the beneficial piece of legislation then the Court will have to proceed with such rule of law at first but not with the exceptions, if any, otherwise such actions will be frustrating to the claimant/s in both ways i.e. by the death or injury and by the trend to refusal to payment of adequate compensation. 7. Coming back to the concerned case we find that the multiplier of 15 has been used to come to an appropriate conclusion considering the age of the deceased 44 years. Though second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Act speaks about such applicability about the cases under Section 163-A but in determining just compensation under Section 166 of the Act, we can not ignore such logical basis i.e. the second Schedule. It can be principally applied. In Supe Dei and others v. National Insurance Co. Limited and another, 2002 (3) TAC 378 (SC), a three Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court held that it is not disputed that though the Second Schedule to the Act in terms does not apply in the case since the claim is not made under Section 163-A of the Act, it serves as a guideline for the purpose of determination of compensation under Section 166 of the Act. 8. An emphasis has been given in respect of the Supreme Court judgment reported in 2009 (1) TAC 801 (SC), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bindu and others. 8. An emphasis has been given in respect of the Supreme Court judgment reported in 2009 (1) TAC 801 (SC), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bindu and others. Following the earlier judgment the Bench of the Supreme Court held that the appropriate highest multiplier was held to be 18 and that is to be applied for the age group of 21 years to 25 years when an ordinary Indian Citizen starts independently earning and the lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70, which is the normal age of retirement. According to such judgment, the Second Schedule is the guide but not the ready reckoner since there are several mistakes into it. We are fully aware of the same but can not ignore Second Schedule as principle or guideline being a part of an Act of Parliament. 9. The deceased was a professional. The income is based on the annual income tax return. Last gross total income for the year 2007-08 has been shown Rs. 1,23,644/-. Question before us is whether the Court will proceed on the basis of gross income or on the basis of net income. In the judgment reported in AIR 2008 SC 845 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and others, it has been held that the Court should proceed on the basis of the gross income. 10. In the judgment reported in 2003(3) SCC 484, State of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur and others, the Supreme Court held as follows : “The Tribunal while awarding compensation has to determine the amount which is to be in the real sense “damages”, which in turn appears to it to be “just and reasonable”. Though compensation for loss of limbs or life cannot be weighed in golden scales but at the same time compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. 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. 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. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression “just” denotes equitability, fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.” 11. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in arriving at the quantum of compensation as arrived at by the Tribunal. 12. On another issue the Supreme Court in 1999 (1) TAC 1 (SC), Helen C. Rebello and others v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, held that even one gets an amount by way of Motor Vehicles Act is statutory in nature and received or receivable no deduction can be made if one gets any sum like the life insurance policy being contractual in nature. The same ratio has been followed in 2002 (2) TAC 721 (SC), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, where it has been held that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing deductions on account of benefits of Social Security System and Life Insurance Corporation. 13. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission on contest on informal papers, as agreed upon by the parties. However, no order is passed as to costs. 14. However, in case the owner and/or anyone has preferred any appeal or made any application before the appropriate Court/tribunal, the insurance company will not be debarred from contesting the same. 15. Incidentally, the appellant-insurance company prayed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made before this Court for preferring this appeal be remitted back to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as possible in order to adjust the same with the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants, however, such prayer is allowed. Honble D.K. Arora, J.—I agree. ———