JUDGMENT : Hon'ble H.S. Bhalla, J. - This appeal has been filed by the appellants for modification of the award with the prayer that just compensation has not been awarded and the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced. 2. The lights of the house of the appellants were switched off when the deceased Subrat Kumar Garnaik met with an accident near Solia Bazaar and received fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident involving vehicle No. OSJ-727 driven by the driver of the said vehicle and owned by respondent No. 1. The claimant-appellants filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of Subrat Kumar Garnaik in a motor vehicular accident. The petition was contested by the respondent No. 2 by filing written statement and the learned Claims Tribunal after framing of issues and assessment of the evidence led by both the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,69,000/- as compensation and also imposed cost of Rs. 500/- so far as the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 1 is concerned, as he was set ex parte. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants only on the question of compensation that is to be granted to the claimant-appellants and have gone through the records. 3. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the multiplier of 15 applied was extremely low. He has urged that Subrat Kumar Garnaik, deceased was only 30 years of age at the time of his death and was working as a Contractor earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. To my mind, there has been a tendency as of low, to adopt a higher multiplier because of the increased life expectancy in this country. Moreover the payment of compensation should be reasonable which may be sufficient keeping in view the facts and the circumstances of the case but at the same time, it should not be lavishly granted as the same causes burden on the society indirectly. The just compensation of the Tribunal should be fair, moderate and awardable in the proved circumstances of the case. 4. Law is well settled that while determining amount of compensation in cases of accidental deaths some guess work, hypothetical consideration and sympathy "are also to be taken into consideration. The compensation to be so determined has to be a "just compensation". 4. Law is well settled that while determining amount of compensation in cases of accidental deaths some guess work, hypothetical consideration and sympathy "are also to be taken into consideration. The compensation to be so determined has to be a "just compensation". The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the expression "just" denotes equability, fairness and reasonableness. The relevant extracts of para 4 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Mishra v. Muniam Babu and others, 1999 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 134 : 1999 (3) T.A.C. 35, is reproduced as under: He has claimed his income to be Rs. 2,000 per month. The appellant, a young man cannot be disputed to be contributing and augmenting the income of his father. Some guess work has to be applied while assessing the loss. This Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., SCC p. 556 : 1995 (1) T.A.C 557, para 9 : 9. Broadly speaking while fixing an 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 incapable 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 upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far 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. It was further held that whenever a Tribunal or Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability caused. It was further held that whenever a Tribunal or Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability caused. However, all such elements are required to be viewed with objective standards. While assessing damage, the Court cannot base its opinion merely on speculation or fancy though conjectures to some extent are inevitable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. v. Mahadeva Shetty and another, 2005 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 423 : 2003 (3) T.A.C. 284, in paras 12 and 15 had laid down as under : 12. It is true that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew physique or frame that has been battered and shattered, as stated by Lord Morris in West v. Shephard. Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind. The object of providing compensation is to be place the claimant as far as possible in the same position financially as he was before the accident. Broadly speaking, in the case of death the basis of compensation is loss of pecuniary loss, expenses etc. and loss to be estate. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the legal representatives due to the sudden demise of the deceased in the accident. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and as should neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be exact uniform rule for measuring the value of human life and the measures of damage cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculation; but amount recoverable depends on broad facts and circumstances of each case. It should neither be punitive against whom claim is decreed nor should it be a source of profit for the person in whose favour it is awarded. Upjohn, L.J. in Charterhouse Credit v. Tolly, remarked, "the assessment of damages has never been an exact science; it is essentially practical (All E.R. p. 433 C). 15. It has to be kept in view what the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which to it appears to be "just". It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. 15. It has to be kept in view what the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which to it appears to be "just". It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. Bodily injury is nothing but a deprivation which entitled the claimant to damages. The quantum of damages, fixed should be in accordance with the injury. An injury may bring about many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential losses. A person becomes entitled to damages for the mental and physical loss, his or her life may have been shortened or that the or she cannot enjoy life, which has been curtailed because physical handicap. The normal expectation of life is impaired. But at the same time, it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall of 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 or 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 be 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 equability, fairness and reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. If it is not so, it cannot be just. 5. The expression "just" denotes equability, fairness and reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. If it is not so, it cannot be just. 5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and the ratio of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above, it would be just, expedient and appropriate to apply the multiplier of 17 instead of 15 as applied by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the appellants are entitled to receive Rs. 48,000/- over and above the amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. I order accordingly.However, it is made clear that in case the amount of enhanced compensation of Rs. 48,000/- is paid by the respondent No. 2 within a period of forty five days from the date a certified copy of the order is received, then in that event, the appellants shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation. However, if respondent No. 2 fails to deposit the said amount within the stipulated period, then it would be liable to pay interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation. The present appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Final Result : Allowed