JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.1.2000 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. TS(MAC) No. 74 of 1999. 2. The fact of the case, in a nutshell, as may be necessary for disposal of this appeal, is set out herein below: On 10.1.99, Sri Sudip Kumar Sutradhar (hereinafter called 'the deceased') aged about 19 years was proceeding to Agartala from Melaghar in a vehicle, under Registration No. TR 01A 0252. The vehicle, which was in speed, dashed against a road side tree near Charilam (Bishramganj) as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and chest. The deceased was removed to G.B. Hospital for treatment, wherein he succumbed to the injuries on the next date. The father of the deceased, as claimant filed a claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. The claimant, in his claim petition stated that the deceased, who was aged about 19 years, used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month as manager-cum-carpenter. The said vehicle, which belonged to Smt. Dalia Sutradhar, w/o late Narayan Sutradhar of town Borodowali, Agartala averred in her written statement, that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. 3. The owner of the said vehicle and the Insurance Company contested the claim by filing two separate written statements. The owner of the vehicle did not deny the accident and pleaded that, the vehicle being insured with the National Insurance Company, at the relevant period, compensation, if any, should be paid by the said insurer. 4. The National Insurance Company Ltd., by filing a written statement, stated that the alleged accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and that the said vehicle was not responsible for the same. It has also been pleaded that the claimant failed to disclose all information about the deceased and that the claim was false and liable to be rejected. The insurer further disputed the validity of licence of the said vehicle as well as the driver. The said contesting Insurance Company also denied the claim of the claimant that the deceased was a manager cum carpenter and that his monthly income was Rs. 3,000/-. The claim towards the medical expenses in respect of the deceased has also been disputed by the insurer. 5. The said contesting Insurance Company also denied the claim of the claimant that the deceased was a manager cum carpenter and that his monthly income was Rs. 3,000/-. The claim towards the medical expenses in respect of the deceased has also been disputed by the insurer. 5. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Member of the Tribunal framed the following issues for determination: (i) Whether deceased Sudip Sutradhar died in a vehicular accident on 11.1.99 at about 3.00 - 4.00 pm due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. TR-01A-0252? (ii) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get compensation, if so what should be the amount of compensation and who should be held liable for payment? 6. The claimant-Petitioner examined two witnesses. The opposite party failed to examine any witness in support of their pleas. The learned member of the Tribunal, while deciding the issue No. 1 aforesaid, came to the finding that the deceased sustained injury in a vehicular accident on the fateful day due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and died in hospital on 11.1.99. Accordingly, the Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimant. 7. While deciding the Issue No. 2 and considering the claimant's plea that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month as manager of the 'Ma Cabinet', the learned trial Judge observed that as the deceased was a student of Class-VIII, he could not work as a manager of a carpentry business and accordingly, arrived at the finding that a youth of 19 years of age could easily earn Rs. 2,000/-per month by doing manual labour. On the basis of the said finding, the learned trial Judge calculated the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 24,000/- (2000 x 12). As the deceased died as a bachelor, considering the age of the mother of the deceased (40 years), the learned trial Judge applied the multiplier 16 to calculate the loss of dependency and thus, quantified the amount at Rs. 3,84,000/-. Out of the said amount, one-third, being the maintenance expenditure of the deceased, was deducted and the total amount of compensation, payable to the claimant, was fixed at Rs. 2,56,000/-. Though the claimant pleaded that he had spent Rs. 12,000/- for medical treatment of the deceased, the learned trial Judge awarded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards medical treatment. Another amount of Rs. 2,56,000/-. Though the claimant pleaded that he had spent Rs. 12,000/- for medical treatment of the deceased, the learned trial Judge awarded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards medical treatment. Another amount of Rs. 2,000/-being the funeral expenses, was also granted. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 2,63,000 (2,56,000 + 5000 + 2000) was awarded as compensation. It was directed that the mother of the deceased, namely, Smt. Kankan Sutradhar and the claimant, who is the father of the deceased will get the awarded compensation in equal share. 8. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Member of the Tribunal held that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. at the relevant period. Accordingly, the liability to pay the said compensation was fixed with the said insurer. It was also provided, by the impugned judgment and order, that the said compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the said claim petition i.e. 5:2.99. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount within two months, failing which, it was ordered that the award shall carry interest @ 18% per annum after the expiry of the said period of two months. The learned Member of the Tribunal further directed that fifty percent of the awarded compensation, including interest, should be invested in the joint name of the claimant and his wife, namely Smt. Kankan Sutradhar for a long term fixed deposit with UCO Bank, Agartala for a period of five years and directed the Bank Manager not to grant any loan or advance against the said amount, without prior permission of the Tribunal. Further, it was directed that the monthly interest, which would accrue on the said amount, should be paid to the parties. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimant, as Appellant, has come up with this appeal, filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation aforesaid. 9. I have heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. P. Datta, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 10. Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has submitted that the learned Member of the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and came to an erroneous finding, in quantifying the amount of compensation. P. Datta, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 10. Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has submitted that the learned Member of the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and came to an erroneous finding, in quantifying the amount of compensation. It is also submitted that, though there was sufficient oral evidence to show that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/-, the learned trial Judge came to a wrong finding that the deceased, who read upto Class-VIII, could not work as a manager of a carpentry business and as such his monthly income, as a manual labour, was Rs. 2,000/-. The learned Counsel has submitted that the claimant, deposing as PW 1, in his evidence given on oath, clearly stated that the deceased used to work as a manager-cum-carpenter in the 'Ma Cabinet' and that his monthly income was Rs. 3,000/- per month, which was duly corroborated by PW 2 i.e. the employer of the deceased. It is submitted that the said oral evidence, not being demolished during cross-examination, the learned trial Judge committed error by disbelieving the same, more particularly, the evidence given by the employer of the deceased regarding the income of the deceased. It is also submitted, on behalf of the Appellant, that the learned Member of the Tribunal failed to consider the medical expenses incurred by the claimant towards the treatment of the deceased. Mr. Roy Barman, learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that as the deceased was a 19 years old young person, he had the future prospect of earning more money and as such the learned trial Judge committed error by failing to take into account the prospect of future income. 11. In support of his contention, Mr. Roy Barman, learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Hellen Deb v. Dilip Dey and Anr.: (2005) 2 GLR 5 (ii) General Manager, Kerala Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas: (1994) 2 SCC 176 (iii) R.K. Malik and Anr. v. Kiran Paul and Ors. AIR 2009 SC 2506 . 12. Refuting the said argument advanced on behalf of the Appellant, Mr. v. Kiran Paul and Ors. AIR 2009 SC 2506 . 12. Refuting the said argument advanced on behalf of the Appellant, Mr. Datta, learned Counsel appearing for the insurer has submitted that, except the oral evidence, given by P W 1 and PW 2, there is no documentary evidence, in support of the claim that the deceased used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month as his salary and as such the learned trial Judge rightly fixed the monthly income at Rs. 2,000/- per month. It is also submitted that, though an amount of Rs. 12,000/- was claimed towards the medical expenses, no medical prescription, cash memo or money receipts could be produced by the claimant to substantiate his 'claim and as such the learned trial Judge committed no error by refusing to grant the amount, claimed by the claimant, towards the medical expenses. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal, even in the absence of supporting documentary evidence, liberally awarded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses. Regarding the future prospect of income of the deceased, the learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent has submitted that in such a case, the claimant is required to plead and justify that there was future prospect of earning more money by the deceased. It is also submitted that in considering the future prospect of income, Court is required to rely on certain basic things like the educational qualification, the earning capacity, the nature of the business run by the deceased etc. It is submitted by Mr. P. Dutta, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that, in the present case, there is nothing on record to justify that the deceased had any future prospect of earning more. With the above submission, the learned Counsel, appearing for the Insurance Company has prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 13. In order to appreciate the rival arguments, advanced on behalf of both the parties, I feel it appropriate to briefly scan the evidence on record. The claimant, deposing as PW 1, in his evidence stated that his son was serving in the 'Ma Cabinet' as its manager-cum-carpenter and that his monthly income, as salary, was Rs. 3,000/-. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that the deceased was a student of Class-VIII. He denied the suggestion that his son was not the Manager of the 'Ma Cabinet' and that his monthly income was not Rs. 3,000/-. 3,000/-. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that the deceased was a student of Class-VIII. He denied the suggestion that his son was not the Manager of the 'Ma Cabinet' and that his monthly income was not Rs. 3,000/-. He also stated that the age of his son was 19 years at the time of his death. Supporting the evidence of PW 1, Sri Sunil Sutradhar, who was the proprietor of 'Ma Cabinet', deposing as PW 2 stated that the deceased was his employee and that he used to earn Rs. 3,000/- as a worker. He also denied the suggestion that the monthly salary of the deceased was not Rs. 3,000/-. Though the PW 1 and PW 2 were cross-examined, on behalf of the contesting Respondents, no contradiction could be elicited to make their evidence unbelievable. Rather, their evidence, regarding the employment of the deceased and his income, remained unshaken. As the employer of the deceased, appearing in the Court, on oath, clearly stated that the deceased was his employee and that he used to pay him Rs. 3,000/- per month as his salary, there was no necessity to produce any document or certificate from the said employer, in support of the said employment of the deceased or his monthly income. It is settled provision that the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act, regarding payment of compensation, has been enacted by the Legislature to give benefit to the sufferer or the dependents of the persons, who dies or sustains injury in vehicular accident. PW 1 nowhere stated that the deceased was studying in Class-VIII at the relevant time. What he meant was that the deceased, who was 19 years old at the time of death read upto Class-VIII. This evidence of PW 1 indicates the academic qualification of the deceased. But the learned Member of the Tribunal, without properly considering the oral evidence, given by PW 1 as well as the employer of the deceased, disbelieved the evidence regarding income of the deceased only on the ground that the deceased being a student of Class-VIII was not capable of working as a Manager of a carpentry business. There is nothing on record to find that a person reading upto Class-VIII is not capable of working as a manager of carpentry business. In my considered opinion, this finding is not based on record and as such erroneous. There is nothing on record to find that a person reading upto Class-VIII is not capable of working as a manager of carpentry business. In my considered opinion, this finding is not based on record and as such erroneous. The learned trial Judge should have considered the oral evidence given by the witnesses, which remained unshaken. Though the claimant stated that the deceased worked as a manager-cum-carpenter, the employer of the deceased, who deposed as PW 2, clearly stated that the deceased worked as carpenter and that he earned Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, there was no difficulty in believing that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/- per month, which amount he used to earn as his fixed monthly income as a carpenter. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in holding that the learned trial Judge committed error, by discarding the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2, without sufficient reason and fixing the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 2,000/- per month despite there being supporting evidence to show that his monthly income was Rs. 3,000/-. In view of the above, the learned trial Judge should have computed the award taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/-. Coming to the award towards the medical expenses, it is found that though the claimant-Appellant claimed Rs. 12,000/- towards medical expenses, he failed to substantiate the said claim by adducing supporting evidence i.e. either by producing oral or documentary evidence. In order to claim medical expenses, the claimant is required to produce the money receipt or cash memo in support of the actual expenditure, if any, made by him. In the present case, the claimant has failed to do so. Even in his evidence given as PW 1, the claimant did not whisper anything regarding the said medical expenses. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the learned trial Judge committed no error by awarding an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards treatment of the deceased instead of Rs. 12,000/- as claimed by the claimant. 14. In order to consider the claimants' claim regarding enhancement of the award and compensation on account of prospect of advancement in future career of the deceased, I feel it appropriate to examine the attending facts and circumstances in the light of the principles of law laid by the Supreme Court in this regard. 12,000/- as claimed by the claimant. 14. In order to consider the claimants' claim regarding enhancement of the award and compensation on account of prospect of advancement in future career of the deceased, I feel it appropriate to examine the attending facts and circumstances in the light of the principles of law laid by the Supreme Court in this regard. There can be no doubt that the award granted must be just and proper. 15. In the case of R.K. Mallik and Anr. (supra), a bus carrying the claimant's children to the school had fallen into the river 'Yamuna' due to rash and negligent driving. The claimants, as Appellants, filed appeal alleging that the compensation awarded was not just and reasonable. On appeal, High Court enhanced the compensation by Rs. 75,000/-and Rs. 1,000/- (if not already awarded by the Tribunal) with interest. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellants preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in the said case observed- "Undoubtedly, the compensation in law is paid to restore the person, who has suffered damage or loss in the same position, if the tortuous act or the breach of contract had not been committed. The law requires that the party suffering should be put in the same position, if the contract had been performed or the wrong had not been committed. The law in all such matters requires payment of adequate, reasonable and just monetary compensation. In cases of motor accidents the Endeavour is to put the dependents/claimants in the pre-accidental position. Compensation in cases of motor accidents, as in other matters, is paid for reparation of damages. The damages so awarded should be adequate sum of money that would put the party, who has suffered, in the same position if he had not suffered on account of the wrong. Compensation is therefore required to be paid for prospective pecuniary loss i.e. future loss of income/dependency suffered on account of the wrongful act. However, no amount of compensation can restore the lost limb or the experience of pain and suffering due to loss of life. Loss of a child, life or a limb can never be eliminated or ameliorated completely. To put it simply pecuniary damages cannot replace a human life or limb lost. However, no amount of compensation can restore the lost limb or the experience of pain and suffering due to loss of life. Loss of a child, life or a limb can never be eliminated or ameliorated completely. To put it simply pecuniary damages cannot replace a human life or limb lost. Therefore, in addition to the pecuniary losses, the law recognises that payment should also be made for non-pecuniary losses on account of loss of happiness, pain, suffering and expectancy of life etc. The Act provides for payment of "just compensation" vide Sections 166 and 168 It is left to the Courts to decide what would be "just compensation" in facts of a case." The Supreme Court while holding that it is incumbent upon the Courts to consider the aspect of future prospect was pleased to refer to the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala SRTC (supra), Sarala Dixit v. Balwant Yadav reported in (1996) 3 SCC 179 and Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 . In the case of R.K. Malik (supra), the Supreme Court, at para 32, was pleased to observe as follows: In view of discussion made hereinbefore, it is quite clear the claim with regard to future prospect should have been addressed by the Courts below. While considering such claims, child's performance in school, the reputation of the school etc. might be taken into consideration. In the present case, records shows that the children were good in studies and studying in a reasonably good school. Naturally, their future prospect would be presumed to be good and bright. Since they were children, there is no yardstick to measure the loss of future prospects of these children. But as already noted, they were performing well in studies, natural consequence supposed to be a bright future. In the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra) and M.S. Grewal (supra), the Supreme Court recognized such future prospect as basis and factor to be considered. Therefore, denying compensation towards future prospects seems to be unjustified. Keeping this in background, facts and circumstances of the present case, and following the decision in Lata Wadhwa (supra) and M.S. Grewal (supra), we deem it appropriate to grant compensation of Rs. Therefore, denying compensation towards future prospects seems to be unjustified. Keeping this in background, facts and circumstances of the present case, and following the decision in Lata Wadhwa (supra) and M.S. Grewal (supra), we deem it appropriate to grant compensation of Rs. 75,000/- (which is roughly half of the amount given on account of pecuniary damages) as compensation for the future prospects of the children, to be paid to each claimant within one month of the date of this decision. We would like to clarify that this amount i.e. Rs. 75,000/- is over and above what has been awarded by the High Court. In view of the above, it is quite clear that the claim with regard to future prospect was considered taking into account the child's performance in school, the reputation of the school etc. and on such consideration, their future prospect was presumed to be good and bright. 16. In the case of Smt. Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the Supreme Court observed- In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarala Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax'. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.) the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure there from should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. 17. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.) the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure there from should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. 17. In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), the Supreme Court in the said case, also observed- Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case, "it is the overall picture that matters, and the Court must try to assess as best as it can be the loss suffered. In the above referred case, the deceased was 38 years old and he was employed in a newspaper establishment on a monthly salary of Rs. 1032. The Supreme Court in the said case further observed- The deceased person in this case had a more or less stable job. It will not be inappropriate to take a reasonably liberal view of the prospect of the future and in estimating the gross income it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the present actual income of Rs. 1032 per month. We think having regard to the prospects of advancement in the future career, respecting which there is evidence on record, we will not be in error in making a higher estimate of monthly income at Rs. 2,000/- as the gross income. From this has to be deducted his personal living expenses, the quantum of which again depends on various factors such as whether the style of living was Spartan or bohemian. In the absence of evidence it is not unusual to deduct one-third of the gross income towards the personal living expenses and treat the balance as the amount likely to have been spent on the members of the family and the dependents. 18. In the case of R.K. Mallik (supra), the Supreme Court observed- 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. 18. In the case of R.K. Mallik (supra), the Supreme Court observed- 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. 19. In the case of Hallen Deb (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court, while considering the claim, in respect of a deceased, whose daily income was found to be Rs. 60/-as a mason, awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards his future prospect and advancement in career. In deciding the said matter, the Court referred to the decision held in the case of General Manager, Kerala SRTC (supra). 20. In the case of R.K. Mallik (supra), the Supreme Court, while granting compensation towards the future prospect of the children, who died in a vehicular accident, considered their records in studies, performance in school and the standard of the school wherein they studied. Considering the above aspect, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the said case granted compensation towards future prospect of the children. In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), the Supreme Court, while deciding to grant award towards future prospects of advancement in career held that there was evidence, on record, with regard to prospects of advancement in the future career. Therefore, it stands settled that, in a case, where there is evidence to show that there is prospect of advancement in future career of the victim, then the Court should duly consider that aspect of the matter and award appropriate and just compensation on the said count. But in the absence of any evidence or materials, on record, there cannot be any basis to grant compensation on account of prospects of advancement in the future career. 21. But in the absence of any evidence or materials, on record, there cannot be any basis to grant compensation on account of prospects of advancement in the future career. 21. In the light of the above principles, laid down by the Supreme Court, in my humble opinion, in order to grant relief towards future prospect, record must reveal existence of scope for enhancement in the future career of the deceased. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the deceased, who read upto Class-VIII and a fixed income of Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. almost Rs. 100 per day as a carpenter at the age of 19 years, had any future prospect for increasing his income or salary. There is also no material to find from the record, that the salary of the deceased was likely to be increased in future. Considering the entire aspect of the matter and the fact that the deceased was earning a fixed income of Rs. 3,000/- per month as a carpenter, I find no sufficient reason to find that there was any prospect of future advancement in the career of the deceased, resulting increase in his income. Therefore, I find no force in favour of the claim regarding compensation towards future prospects of advancement in the career of the deceased. 22. In the present case, as held in the case of Smt. Sarala Verma (supra), the claimant is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under the head of 'loss of estate', which amount has not been awarded by the learned Member of the Tribunal. 23. In view of the above discussion, the award granted by the learned Member of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as indicated herein below: Yearly loss of income (3000x12) Rs. 36,000.00 One-third deducted towards personal expenses (Rs. 36,000--12000) = Rs. 24,000.00 Multiplied by 16 being the multiplier Rs. 24,000 x 16 = Rs. 3,84,000 Medical expenses Rs. 5,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000.00 Loss of estate Rs. 5.000.00 Rs. 3,96,000.00 24. In view of the above discussion, the claimant as well as the mother of the deceased shall be entitled to get an amount of Rs. 3,96,000/- (Rupees three lakh ninety six thousand) only from the insurer. The awarded amount, if not already paid, shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of this order. 3,96,000.00 24. In view of the above discussion, the claimant as well as the mother of the deceased shall be entitled to get an amount of Rs. 3,96,000/- (Rupees three lakh ninety six thousand) only from the insurer. The awarded amount, if not already paid, shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of this order. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ Rs. 6% per annum from this date, if paid within a period of six months. If the said amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the said enhanced amount shall carry interest @ Rs. 9% per annum. It is made clear that no interference is made in respect of the direction made by the learned Member of the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of the originally awarded amount and the interest thereon. 25. With the above modification in respect of the award, this appeal is allowed. No cost. Appeal allowed