JUDGMENT Devi Prasad Singh, J. & Dr. Satish Chandra, J. - Both the cross appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 15.01.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hardoi in Claim Petition No. 155 of 1999. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.03.1999, the deceased Nanhe Singh along with Dhruv Kumar was going in a Tempo from Hardoi to Kaura. Near Kaura, the Tempo has broken down and, as such, the deceased along with his friend Sri Dhruv Kumar and Ashok Kumar decided to go to village on foot. At about 7.30 pm, a Tractor no. 30-A 1494 was coming from the opposite side, whose driver was driving the said Tractor very rashly and negligently, hit the deceased along with Sri Dhruv Kumar and Sri Ashok Kumar. All the three persons got injuries. Sri Nanhe Singh was admitted in the district hospital Hardoi where he died. The wife of the deceased and the minor children have approached the Tribunal for compensation. 3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hardoi, after examining the entire evidence observed that the accident occurred at about 7.30 pm on 06.03.1999 due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor. The Tractor in question was driving by Sri Nand Kishore son of Jugnu @ Jagannath i.e. father of the driver. The Tractor in question was insured with the National Insurance Company w.e.f. 07.11.1998 to 06.11.1999. Thus, on the date, the Tractor in question was insured. The Tribunal has answered all the questions framed against the insurance company. The Tribunal also observed that a police case was registered against the driver of the said Tractor. The Tribunal mentioned in its order (issue no.5) that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- per month from agricultural activities as well as the business of food grain. However, the Tribunal has awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @15% per annum. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned award dated 15.01.2001, the claimants - respondents have filed the appeal No. 165 of 2001 for enhancement of the compensation and the insurance company has also filed appeal 204 of 2001 before this Court. 5. With this background, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submits that the deceased Nanhe Singh was a young man aged about 40 years. 5. With this background, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submits that the deceased Nanhe Singh was a young man aged about 40 years. He was earning a sum of Rs.5000/- per month from the business of food grains and agricultural activities. The compensation is very meagre one in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Alka Verma, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record. She also submits that the alleged vehicle was not insured with the insurance company as engine number and chassis number are different from the number mentioned in the policy issued by the insurance company. She further submits that in the police case, final report has been filed. Thus, the vehicle in question was not involved in the said accident. The driving license of the driver of the vehicle in question was fake and one Sri Ashok Kumar, who was the eye witness, denied the negligence driving of the alleged tractor. 7. During the course of argument, Ms. Alka Verma learned counsel for the insurance company admits that no permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been obtained. Lastly, she submits that the interest and compensation awarded by the Tribunal are on higher side and as such, the same may kindly be quashed. 8. We have heard both the parties at length and gone through the material available on record. 9. In the instant case, the accident is not disputed. It may be mentioned that the criminal proceedings are the independent proceedings which have nothing to do with the claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. So, if the final report has been field in the criminal case, it has no impact in the instant case. 10. On merit, it is well established that the deceased Sri Nanhe Singh died in the accident, occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor driver, which was driven by Sri Nand Kishore. The ownership of the Tractor was with the father of the driver namely, Sri Jugnu @ Jagannath on the date of accident. The said Tractor was insured with the National Insurance Company. The Driver Sri Nand Kishore was holding a valid driving license on the date of accident. The ownership of the Tractor was with the father of the driver namely, Sri Jugnu @ Jagannath on the date of accident. The said Tractor was insured with the National Insurance Company. The Driver Sri Nand Kishore was holding a valid driving license on the date of accident. No evidence was brought on record before the Tribunal pertaining to Chassis and Engine number of the Tractor. 11. It may be mentioned that India is one of the countries with the highest number of road accidents. Motor accidents are everyday affairs. A large number of claims for compensation for injury caused by road accidents are pending in various Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In a fatal accident, the dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death. The most commonly practiced method of assessing the loss suffered to calculate the loss for a year and then to capitalize the amount by a suitable multiplier. To that is added the loss suffered on account of loss of expectation of life and the like. The Tribunals and High Courts have adopted divergent methods to determine the suitable multiplier. Even this Court has not been uniform; may be because the principle on which this method came to be evolved has been forgotten. It has, therefore, keeping in view the legislature also in exercise of the powers u/s 163-A has framed a schedule providing therein the tabulation for calculation of compensation. 12. The damages for vehicular accidents are in the nature of compensation in money for loss of any kind caused to any person. In case of personal injury the position is different from loss of property. In the later case, there is possibility of repair or restoration. But in the case of personal injury, the possibility of repair or restoration is practically non-existent. In Parry v. Cleaver Lord Morris stated as follows: "To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult, but ..........no other process can be devised than that of making monetary assessment." 13. 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. 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. Though the legislature has framed a 2nd schedule for payment of compensation but 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 on 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. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. laying the principles posited: "Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are capable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." 14. In the instant case, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- without applying the multiplier and without taking into consideration the other factors, like age etc. The deceased Sri Nanhe Singh was aged about 40 years. Since no proof of income was submitted, the notional income will have to be taken as per the ratio laid down in the case of Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohammad Tabbar and another; 2008 (2) TAC 394 (SC) where it was observed that the minimum income even notionally should not be less than Rs.3000/- per month. Accordingly, in case the income of the deceased is assessed at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month and 1/3rd is deducted in lieu of personal expenses, the net income shall be Rs.2000/- per month i.e. Rs.24,000/- per year. Since the deceased was aged about 40 years, multiplier of 15 will apply under Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, Thus, the compensation will come to Rs.3,60,000/-. In addition, the claimants are also entitled for Rs.2000/- as funeral expenses; Rs.2500/- for loss of Estate and Rs.5000/- as loss of consortium. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.3,69,500/- (Three lacs sixty nine thousand and five hundred). 15. Accordingly, the appeal no. 165 of 2001 filed by the claimants - respondents is allowed. The impugned award dated 15.01.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hardoi is modified. The claimants - respondents are entitled to the compensation of Rs.3,67,000/- in terms of the impugned award. Appeal for the enhancement of the compensation is allowed. 16. 15. Accordingly, the appeal no. 165 of 2001 filed by the claimants - respondents is allowed. The impugned award dated 15.01.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hardoi is modified. The claimants - respondents are entitled to the compensation of Rs.3,67,000/- in terms of the impugned award. Appeal for the enhancement of the compensation is allowed. 16. So far as the appeal No. 204 of 2001 filed by the insurance company is concerned, it appears that the interest @15% is too high. By keeping in mind the prevailing rate at the relevant time in the bank deposits, we awarded interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition. The appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed in part. 17. The registry of this Court is directed to remit the entire amount deposited in this Court to the Tribunal concerned for making payment to the claimants - respondents in terms of the award. 18. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.