JUDGMENT 1. The instant appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 5th October, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Asansol in MAC Case No. 24/2003/84 of 2002. The claim petition was filed by the mother of the victim. The victim died in a road traffic car accident caused by a truck on 6th June, 2002. The mother made a claim of Rs. 8 lakhs as compensation. The Tribunal has been awarded a sum of Rs. 1, 84,500/- as compensation. 2. In the proceedings, the claimant apart from examinating herself has also produced one Sushil Bankeraika as claimant's witness. The mother deposed that his son at the time of accident had a monthly income of Rs. 6,000/-. He was getting a salary of Rs. 4,500/- from Sushil Bankeraika and Rs. 1500/- from Jai Shree Bhander. The evidence shows that her son was a part time employee with Sushil Bankeraika and Jai Shree Bhander. The mother in her deposition has categorically said that her son was getting a salary of Rs. 4500/- per month from Sushil Bankeriaka and Rs. 1500/- from Jay Shree Bhander. The said evidence was corroborated by Sushil Bankeriaka. 3. Before the Tribunal in support of the claim of Rs. 6,000/-, a certificate issued by Sushil Bankeriaka in favour of the victim was produced from which it appears that the victim was receiving Rs. 4,500/- from Sushil Bankeriaka at the relevant time. However, Sushil Bankeriaka was unable to produce any salary register. Sushil Bankeriaka has also produced his income tax return wherefrom it appears that for the year ended on 31st March, 2003 he had spent Rs. 1,84,500/- towards salary and fees of his employees. He contended that it is a fact that the victim was working with him as a part time employee drawing a salary of Rs. 4,500/-. 4. Learned Tribunal on the basis of such evidence held that in the instant case, the notional income as mentioned in the second schedule would be attracted and, accordingly, the compensation was fixed at Rs. 15,000/- per month as income of the deceased. 5. Assailing the said order, the present appeal has been preferred. 6. 4,500/-. 4. Learned Tribunal on the basis of such evidence held that in the instant case, the notional income as mentioned in the second schedule would be attracted and, accordingly, the compensation was fixed at Rs. 15,000/- per month as income of the deceased. 5. Assailing the said order, the present appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court had erroneously applied the notional income and have acted with material irregularity in completely disregardify the evidence adduced by the mother and one of the employees of the deceased. He further submitted that the Learned Tribunal has completely misdirected his mind in not accepting such evidence and more particularly in disbelieving the evidence adduced by the mother. The Tribunal should have kept in mind that the bereaved mother would not come with an exaggerated claim before the Tribunal and such claim has been corroborated at least to some extent by one of the employers of the deceased. Moreover, the fact that the said victim was sustaining himself as also the mother, the Tribunal could not have applied the notional income theory in the instant case. He further submitted that the proper test which should have been applied by the Tribunal under the facts and circumstance is the preponderance and probabilities and the Tribunal should have kept in mind the object of introduction of section 166 and the other provision of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. The Learned Advocate has relied upon the several decisions in support of the contention that when there is some evidence about the income of the victim in deciding such claim arising out of an accident some amount of latitude is required to be shown by the claimants and the rigorous of the provisions of Evidence Act would not apply in such case. He has relied upon the decisions reported in 2007 (1) CLJ (Cal) 338 (Smt. Mira Devi Chowdhury Yadaau & Ors. vs. Chhaatelal Chowdhury & Anr., 2007 (1) CLJ (Cal) 171 (Smt. Sabita Singha & Ors. vs. M/S. National Council of Regional Scheme Centre & Anr.), 2007 (1) CLJ (Cal) 36 (Smt. Chaya Rani Baidya & Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors and 2011 (2) CHN (CAL) 748.(Chaya Bishi. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd). 8. vs. Chhaatelal Chowdhury & Anr., 2007 (1) CLJ (Cal) 171 (Smt. Sabita Singha & Ors. vs. M/S. National Council of Regional Scheme Centre & Anr.), 2007 (1) CLJ (Cal) 36 (Smt. Chaya Rani Baidya & Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors and 2011 (2) CHN (CAL) 748.(Chaya Bishi. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd). 8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company however have contended that the claimant has miserably failed to prove the income of the victim and accordingly, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the approach of the Tribunal was just and proper. He further argued that the multiplier applicable in the instant case is 11 and not 18. 9. Considering the fact that the age of the claimant is required to be taken into consideration and not the age of the victim in view of the decision reported in 2011 (7) SCC 65 , the applicable multiplier would be 11. 10. We have considered the respective submissions and has also taken into consideration the evidence on record. It appears to us that some evidence as to the income of the claimants was adduced by the witnesses in support of the claim. Although there cannot be any clinching and unimpeachable evidence as such as to the exact income of the victim at the time of his death but certainly we are of the view that the application of the notional income thereof in the instant case would result in serious miscarriage of justice. In the instant case the assessment of the income of the deceased son of the claimant by the Tribunal after involving the "Notional income thereof" was not appropriate having regard to the evidence on record. In this case it cannot be said on the basis of the materials on record that the victim had no income. We are fortified in holding the said view in view of the recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also our High Court, since it has been held in such decision that even an unskilled labourer would receive a minimum amount of Rs. 100/ per day as his wages. In case of such an accidental death and having regard to the fact that the victim was rendering some services at two places, the compensation could not have been less than Rs. 3,000/- per month. 100/ per day as his wages. In case of such an accidental death and having regard to the fact that the victim was rendering some services at two places, the compensation could not have been less than Rs. 3,000/- per month. We can also not disregard the fact that no amount can be fixed without any evidence and since it is not a case of lack of evidence or no evidence at all, we interfere with the said award and under the facts and circumstances, we feel that the Tribunal should have fixed at Rs. 3,500/- as the monthly income of the victim at the time of his death and could not have fixed the amount at Rs. 15,000/- per annum by applying the principle of notional income. 11. In view of the aforesaid impugned judgment and award is set aside. The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month aggregating Rs. 42,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd from the said amount, the claimants would be entitled to receive Rs. 28,000/- which is to be multiplied 11 times i.e. Rs. 3,08,000/- as compensation. The claimants would be further entitled to Rs. 4,500/- toward funeral expenses and loss of estate and also interest at the rate Rs. 8% per annum from the date filing of the claim petitioner dated 29th July, 2001 till realization. 12. Since it is not in dispute the claimants had already received Rs. 1,84,500- as compensation in terms of the earlier award, the said sum would be deducted from the awarded sum and the balance amount would carry interest at the rate of Rs. 8% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization and such amount should be deposited by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal within a month from date and in that event, the claimant would be entitled to withdraw the said cheque or the pay order as the case may be upon production of proper identity. 13. The Insurance Company would further liable to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 8% per annum on Rs. 1,84,500/- from the date of claim application namely 29.7.2001 till payment in addition to the sum awarded by this judgment. 14. The appeal is, thus allowed. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of usual formalities. Appeal allowed