JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants, the Managing Director, Tripura Road Transport Corporation, Krishnanagar, Agartala, West Tripura District and two others against the judgment and award dated 31.8.1999 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Dharmanagar ('the Tribunal') in T.S. (MAC) No. 15 of 1995 whereby and where under the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,35,200 to the claimant-respondents in equal share, i.e., Rs.87,040 each. In addition to that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000 and Rs.2,000 to the claimant-respondent No. 1 as consortium and funeral charges respectively. 2. The aforesaid appeal is filed by the appellants mainly on the ground that the learned Tribunal cannot consider the monthly income of the deceased victim more than the amount stated by the claimant-respondents in their claim petition as well as by PWs on their own. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The late husband of the claimant-respondent No. 1, father of the claimant-respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and son of claimant-respondent No. 5 namely, Babul Ch. Deb died on 31.12.1994 at about 10 a.m. near Rajbari tri-junction on Dharmanagar-Bagbassa road in a vehicular accident. It was contended in the claim petition that the deceased victim Babul was an employee of Tripura Road Transport Corporation, Krishnanagar, Agartala, West Tripura ('the Corporation') and was posted in the office of the Deputy Manager of the Corporation at Dharmanagar, North Tripura. It. was asserted in the claim petition that the deceased victim while had been going to garage of the Corporation at Dharmanagar the had found the offending vehicle No. TRS-718 (Bus) going towards the garage. He then signaled the driver of the said bus to stop it so that he could get entry to the but with a view to going to the garage of the Corporation. Thereafter, the driver of the offending vehicle stopped the bus for a short while and he had suddenly started the bus for which the deceased victim could not get entry to the bus and had fallen in the road. Then the vehicle ran over him and he sustained bleeding injuries. The local people thereafter shifted him to Dharmanagar Hospital for treatment of his injuries, but unfortunately he died there on the same day. Then the vehicle ran over him and he sustained bleeding injuries. The local people thereafter shifted him to Dharmanagar Hospital for treatment of his injuries, but unfortunately he died there on the same day. The incident of the accident was brought to the notice of the Officer-in-charge of Dharmanagar Police Station and accordingly a case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. According to the opinion of the doctor who conducted the post mortem over the body of the deceased victim, the victim died due to severe hemorrhage from the wound. 4. The claimant-respondents filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal against the Managing Director, Deputy Manager of the Corporation and the driver of the offending vehicle claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000 for the loss suffered by them due to the death of victim Babul. 5. The respondent-appellants filed joint written statement denying all the allegations made by the claimant-respondents in their claim petition. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: (A) Is there any cause of the suit/case? (B) Has the deceased Babul Chandra Deb died in a vehicular accident on 31.12.1994? (C) Was the vehicle No. T.R.T.C. Bus No. 718 involved in the said accident? (D) Are the claimants entitled to get any relief as prayed for? 7. The claimant-respondents in support of their claim examined five witnesses including the Cashier of the Corporation as PW3 and also produced some documents, which were marked as Exhibits. On the other hand, the respondent-appellants did not adduce any evidence, but they proved some documents, which were also marked as Exhibits. 8. It appears from the evidence of PWs. including PW1, Smt. Sikha Rani Deb, i.e., claimant respondent No. 1 and wife of the deceased victim that at the time of death her husband Babul was at the age of 38 years and his monthly income was Rs.1,750 and with the aforesaid amount he used to maintain his family of six persons including himself. 9. PW2, the then Deputy Manager of the Corporation at Dharmanagar in his deposition stated that he knew the deceased victim who was a peon in his office. 9. PW2, the then Deputy Manager of the Corporation at Dharmanagar in his deposition stated that he knew the deceased victim who was a peon in his office. It is in his evidence that on 31.12.1994 while a bus under the Corporation was moving to the workshop of the Corporation from the office compound knocked down the victim deceased Babul. Babul was shifted to the hospital and subsequently he expired. As DMD of the Corporation, he lodged an information at Dharmanagar Police Station regarding the occurrence. 10. PW3, Shri Nitendra Kr. Deb, who was the Cashier of the Corporation at the relevant time in his deposition specifically stated that the total income of the deceased victim Babul was Rs.1,750 and in his cross, he stated that after all deduction, the net salary of the deceased victim was Rs.1,394. 11. Remaining PWs, i.e., PW4, Sukumar Ghosh and PW5, Babul Trivedi in their deposition stated how the accident occurred. 12. The learned Tribunal considering evidences of PWs. and the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties opined that the claimant-respondents have been able to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, appellant No. 3 herein. Learned tribunal also considered the post mortem report of the deceased victim, which proved that the deceased victim died due to severe hemorrhage from the wound. 13. While calculating the amount of compensation, the learned Tribunal took note of the income of the deceased victim as Rs.3,200 per month on the ground that at the relevant time a Government/Public Sector Undertaking employee was entitled to have Rs.3,200 per month and the minimum wages of the newly appointed Group-D employee was near about Rs.3,200. As the deceased victim was an old employee, he would get more wages had he been alive. 14. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the respondent-appellants have filed the instant appeal. 15. Heard Mr. P. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the claimant-respondents. 16. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the appellants attacks the impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground that the learned Tribunal cannot itself fix the monthly salary of the victim deceased ignoring the statement of PWs., particularly when PW3, the cashier of the Corporation himself in his deposition stated that at the relevant time, the deceased victim was earning Rs.1,750 per month. But the learned Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation assessed the monthly income of the deceased victim at Rs.3,200, which is not permissible under law. 17. On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the claimant-respondents supporting the impugned judgment and award submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal is just and proper. In support of his contention, he referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Ors. AIR 2003 SC 674 , particularly para 10, wherein the Apex Court held, inter alia, that Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to "make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to if to be just". Therefore, only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be 'Just'. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation. 18. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the records available before this Court including the impugned judgment and award, this Court is unable to accept the submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the claimant-respondents, inter alia, that the learned Tribunal can fix the income of the victim deceased taking note of future prospect and income of the similarly situated persons at the relevant time for making the award to be just in view of the decision of Nagappa (supra) as the statute does not empower the tribunal for fixing the monthly income either of an injured or a deceased of a vehicular accident. More so, the tribunal has no machinery to calculate the same and not only that the tribunal has no power to ignore the specific statement given by the claimants in respect of income of the deceased victim. In other words, it can safely be said that, the tribunal cannot guess the income of an injured or a deceased of a vehicular accident when specific evidence regarding the monthly income of the injured or the deceased is available on record. Guess work is, however, permissible only when no evidence is available on record regarding the monthly income either of the injured or the deceased. In the instant case, PW1, Smt. Sikha Rani Deb, wife of the deceased victim as well as PW3, Nitendra Kr. Guess work is, however, permissible only when no evidence is available on record regarding the monthly income either of the injured or the deceased. In the instant case, PW1, Smt. Sikha Rani Deb, wife of the deceased victim as well as PW3, Nitendra Kr. Deb, who was the Cashier of the Corporation at the relevant time and maintained the records of the Corporation relating to pay and salary of the employees of the Corporation including the deceased victim stated that the deceased victim was earning Rs.1,750 per month as salary at the time of his death. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error fixing the monthly income of the deceased victim at Rs.3,200. According to this Court, the monthly income of the deceased victim should be Rs.1,750 as stated by PWs., particularly-PWs. 1 and 3 for calculating the just amount of compensation. 19. If the monthly income of the deceased victim is taken as Rs.1,750 then his monthly contribution to the family was Rs.1,1G5 (deducting 1/3 of the monthly income as personal expenses). Since the victim died at the age of 38 years, the multiplier should be 17. Therefore, the just amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,37,660 (Rs.1,165 x 12 x 17). The claimant-respondents shall get equal share of this amount. In addition to that, the claimant-respondent No. 1 being the wife of the deceased victim, will also get Rs.5,000 as loss of consortium and Rs.2,000 as funeral expenses as ordered by the learned Tribunal. 20. It appears from the record that the claimant-respondents have already received Rs.50,000 from the O.P. appellants under 'no fault liability' scheme and the O.P. appellants had deposited Rs.25,000 as statutory deposit, which is subsequently transmitted to the Presiding Officer, MACT, Dharmanagar, North Tripura. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the appellants have also deposited Rs.1,42,600 as directed by this Court vide order dated 5.4.2000 passed in CM Application No. 28 of 2000. Therefore, the appellants shall deposit the rest amount before the learned Tribunal within two months from today, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from this date; The claimant-respondents are at liberty to withdraw the amount already deposited and would be deposited by the appellants from the learned Tribunal on their proper identification. 21. Therefore, the appellants shall deposit the rest amount before the learned Tribunal within two months from today, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from this date; The claimant-respondents are at liberty to withdraw the amount already deposited and would be deposited by the appellants from the learned Tribunal on their proper identification. 21. The appeal is partly allowed with the modification of the impugned judgment and award to the extent indicated above.