JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra J.—Appellant Opposite party U.P.S.R.T.C. has filed this appeal against the judgment and award dated 31.7.2009 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mathura in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 233/08 allowing the petition of the claimants-respondents moved under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation for the death of Ras Bihari alias Rasu in a motor accident. 2. The background facts giving rise to this appeal are that the wife and the sons and daughters of Ras Bihari, claimants-respondents No. 1 to 6 in this appeal filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 233-2008 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mathura alleging that Ras Bihari was doing the business of selling fruits. On 1.5.2008 he was going to ‘mandi’ in a tempo for the purchase of fruits. When tempo was stopped on the road side near Jindal Factory within the vicinity of village Allehpur to pick up the passengers, bus No. UP85M-9743 came from behind. The bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the tempo from behind. As a result of this accident Ras Bihari sustained injuries and died. 3. The U.P.S.R.T.C., filed its written statement and alleged that on 1.5.2009 the aforesaid bus was coming from Delhi and when the bus reached near Kotacharora the tempo, going ahead, without giving any signal took a turn in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the tempo was hit by the bus. It was also alleged that the tempo was overloaded with the passengers and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. According to the U.P.S.R.T.C the bus was being driven by a competent driver who was holding a valid driving licence. The bus was going at a normal speed. The U.P.S.R.T.C also objected that the driver, owner and the Insurance Company of the tempo have not been arrayed as party in this case. 4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed : 1. Whether on 1.5.2008 at about 6.00 AM U.P. Roadways bus No. UP85M- 9743 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the tempo from behind which was standing on the roadside near the Concrete Factory, near village Allehpur, within P.S. Brindavan, District Mathura, causing death of Ras Bihari. 2. Whether the driver of bus No. UP85M-9743 was having a valid driving licence. 3. 2. Whether the driver of bus No. UP85M-9743 was having a valid driving licence. 3. Whether the claimants-respondents were entitled to any compensation from the opposite party. 5. The Tribunal after considering the evidence produced in the case came to the conclusion that the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver Kunwarpal and decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal recorded a finding on issue No. 2 that the driver of the bus was duly licensed at the time of accident. While deciding issue No. 3 the Tribunal found that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,69,500/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition. 6. It is against this award dated 31.7.2009 that the appeal has been filed. 7. In this appeal we have heard Sri Vipin Chandra Dixit, Advocate appearing for the U.P.S.R.T.C., appellant opposite party, and we have also gone through the papers as have been filed with the appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the U.P.S.R.T.C. argued that the learned Tribunal has committed illegality in recording the finding that the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid bus. His contention is that the evidence available on the record was not appreciated in its right perspective and due to the misreading of the evidence incorrect finding has been recorded with regard to the negligence of the driver of the bus. We have given our considered thought to the above argument and after the perusal of the record we find ourselves unable to accept this argument. The claimant-respondents have examined the eye-witness Ram Prakash who has stated on oath that on the date of accident, that is on 1.5.2008 at about 6.00-7.00 A.M. he along with Makeru and Ajay was standing on the road side near Jindal Concrete Factory. At that time one tempo came from Delhi side and was stationed on the ‘Kaccha’ road side. Few of the passengers alighted from the tempo and some passengers boarded the tempo. At that point of time the roadways bus No. UP85M-9743 was brought by the driver of the bus from Delhi side in rash and negligent manner and the bus dashed against the stationed tempo causing injuries to Ras Bihari who subsequently died. Few of the passengers alighted from the tempo and some passengers boarded the tempo. At that point of time the roadways bus No. UP85M-9743 was brought by the driver of the bus from Delhi side in rash and negligent manner and the bus dashed against the stationed tempo causing injuries to Ras Bihari who subsequently died. It was further stated that after the accident the bus went five hundred meters ahead and thereafter the bus stopped and the driver flew from the spot. The witness was cross-examined at length but nothing favourable to the U.P.S.R.T.C. has come out. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the eye-witness account given by Ras Bihari came to the conclusion that it was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus that the accident was caused and in this accident Ras Bihari died. We feel that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on evidence and no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal. It will also not be out of place to mention here that the appellant opposite party U.P.S.R.T.C. did not examine the driver of the bus before the Tribunal. The driver would have been the best person to tell as to how the accident in question took place. In the absence of his evidence we do not find any reason to discard the eye-witness account given by claimants witness Ram Prakash. Thus the finding of the Tribunal that the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by his driver, is perfect & is confirmed. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant U.P.S.R.T.C. further argued that the Tribunal has committed illegality in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/-. We considered over this argument and we are of the opinion that under the facts and circumstances of the present case the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- 10. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another v. Jasvir Kaur and others, 2003 (7) SCC 484 held as under : It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense “damages” which in turn appears to it to be “just and reasonable.”. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that 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. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression “which appears to it to be just” a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression “just” denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. 11. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Satendra and others, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 324 observed as under : There are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totality of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or the splendour of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape-measure. The determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task. 12. In view of the above judgments of the Supreme Court we have to find out as to whether the compensation allowed by the Tribunal is just or not. 13. The contention of the claimant is that the deceased Ras Bihari used to purchase the fruits from the ‘mandi’ of Mathura and then the fruits were sold by him in the village. He was also supplying the fruits to the push cart owners of village Chaumuha for sale. 13. The contention of the claimant is that the deceased Ras Bihari used to purchase the fruits from the ‘mandi’ of Mathura and then the fruits were sold by him in the village. He was also supplying the fruits to the push cart owners of village Chaumuha for sale. According to the claimants the deceased was earning Rs. 6000/- per month by selling fruits. The wife of the deceased examined herself before the Tribunal and stated that initially her husband was selling the fruits on the push cart but for last two years he was selling the fruits at a shop belonging to Radha Charan Bhagat Ji. The claimants also filed certain documents showing the purchase of fruits from the market. The claimants also examined one Ghanshyam who was having the contract of ‘Tehbazari’ from nagarpalika Chaumuha. He has confirmed that Ras Bihari was doing the business of selling fruits and on that account he was realising Rs. 120 from Ras Bihari as Teh Bazari. He proved the receipt paper No. 19 ga/24 and 19 ga/25 available on the record of the lower Court issued by him. By assessing the evidence of the claimant wife as well as the evidence of the contractor Ghanshyam, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Ras Bihari at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day i.e. Rs. 3000/- per month. We have considered over the finding arrived at by the Tribunal and we feel that the income of Ras Bihari has rightly been assessed by the Tribunal. The wife of the deceased has stated on oath that she is having five children from the marriage with Ras Bihari. Amongst the children there are three unmarried daughters. It is clear that Ras Bihari was maintaining a family of seven persons including himself and such a large family cannot be maintained unless the monthly income is Rs. 3000/-. 14. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard is therefore confirmed. 15. In arriving at the the amount of compensation the Tribunal reduced 1/3 of the annual income towards the personal expenses of the deceased Ras Bihari and assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 24000/-. The multiplier of 15 as given in the Second Shedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was applied as the age of Ras Bihari was 42 years. The amount of compensation thus came to Rs. 3,60,000/-. 24000/-. The multiplier of 15 as given in the Second Shedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was applied as the age of Ras Bihari was 42 years. The amount of compensation thus came to Rs. 3,60,000/-. To this amount was added Rs. 2000/- for the funeral expenses of the deceased, Rs 2500/- for loss of estate and Rs. 5000/- for the loss of consortium to the claimant wife Thus the total amount of compensation was computed at Rs. 3,69,500/-. 16. The Tribunal also directed that the claimants were further entitled to the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition. We have considered over the factum of compensation and we are of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in calculating the above amount of compensation and the above finding is also confirmed. 17. In view of the entire above discussion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. The appeal is dismissed. In the fact and circumstances of the case no order is being passed with regard to the cost. 19. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the Insurance Company at the time of the filing of the appeal shall be remitted to the Tribunal so as to be adjusted in the amount to be deposited by the appellant U.P.S.R.T.C. ————