Judgment This appeal has been taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties in view of the fact that it relates to accident claim; and secondly that the counsel for the claimants has been repeatedly requesting for withdrawal of the amount deposited by the appellant. This Court, therefore, thought it better to dispose of the appeal finally rather than keeping it pending. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and Award dated 18.1.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati, in Claim Petition No.247 of 2007, the appellant/Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal. 3. In support of appeal, Mr. Somani, learned counsel for the appellant, made the following submissions - (i) The Tribunal committed error in taking the net annual income of deceased at Rs.99,000/-, when the same has not been established by proper and legal evidence. (ii) The Tribunal committed an error in considering the income from the employment at Rs.1,669/-per month in absence of strong evidence on record. (iii) The Tribunal committed an error in holding that the deceased was getting Rs.60,000/-per year as commission for advertisements in the newspapers for which he was working as reporter, in the absence of satisfactory evidence on record except the bare words of Mr.Deshpande, local newspaper reporter. (iv) The Tribunal committed error in computing the income from the payment of meeting allowances from the sale-purchase society and Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Morshi, ignoring the fact that the said alleged income is not of permanent nature. (v) The Tribunal committed error in considering the income of Rs.1500/-per month as honorarium for working in the newspaper, in the absence of satisfactory evidence. (vi) The Tribunal committed error in assuming the annual income of deceased at Rs.36,000/-from agriculture, in the absence of satisfactory evidence on record. Finally, learned counsel submitted that this Award is on higher side and the appellant/Insurance Company has been unjustifiably saddled with the liability. He, therefore, prayed for allowing this appeal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the appeal and argued that each and every item discussed by the Tribunal has been considered on the basis of evidence on record, which has gone unchallenged. He, therefore, prayed for allowing this appeal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the appeal and argued that each and every item discussed by the Tribunal has been considered on the basis of evidence on record, which has gone unchallenged. There was no effective cross-examination so as to destroy the versions given by the witnesses and, therefore, there is no reason why the judgment of the Tribunal recorded on facts and on the basis of evidence should be disturbed. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. I have gone through the impugned judgment and Award. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, following points arise for my determination and my findings are recorded against them : (i) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in taking the annual income of the deceased at Rs.99,000/-? Yes. (ii) Whether the Tribunal committed error in awarding Rs. one lac extra towards rise in income portion, and for love and affection? No. 6. CONSIDERATION : It appears from evidence that the deceased was working with Zilla Parishad Credit Society, Amravati, as Recovery Officer and this has been established by evidence before the Court. The Tribunal has after all deductions taken into consideration the net annual income of deceased at Rs.01,99,208/-and the annual income from service as Recovery Officer at Rs.20,000/-per year. Since the evidence of the witness from the Credit Society was acceptable and trustworthy, the Tribunal believed the same. I do not find any error with the Tribunal in accepting the evidence of Narendra (C.W.4), who is the Manager of the said Credit Society. 7. C.W.5 Pradeep, the Editor of local newspaper Jan Madhyam, was examined. The Tribunal found that the income of the deceased working as Reporter of the said newspaper at Rs.1500/-per month has been duly established. The evidence of this witness has gone practically unchallenged. I have therefore no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness C.W.5 Pradeep. Hence, I hold that the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/-per year as a reporter of the local newspaper. 8. The Tribunal also considered the income of Rs.1500/-per month by way of commission for advertisements. Except the bare words of C.W.5 Pradeep Deshpande that deceased was paid Rs.1500/-per month, there is no iota of evidence on record to the above effect. Hence, I hold that the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/-per year as a reporter of the local newspaper. 8. The Tribunal also considered the income of Rs.1500/-per month by way of commission for advertisements. Except the bare words of C.W.5 Pradeep Deshpande that deceased was paid Rs.1500/-per month, there is no iota of evidence on record to the above effect. In absence of any evidence on record, it is not possible to believe the bare words of C.W.5 Deshpande that the deceased was earning Rs.1,500/-per month as commission for the advertisements in the local newspaper. The documentary form of evidence could have been very well made available before the Tribunal and the Tribunal erred in relying on the evidence of C.W.5 Deshpande on that aspect. I, therefore, hold that the Tribunal should not have taken the income of deceased at Rs.1,500/-per month as commission from the advertisements. The Tribunal also took into consideration the income from meeting allowances from A.P.M.C. and from sale-purchase society. In my opinion, such income is never permanent income and the allowances of meeting being petty cannot be called as regular income for taking the same into consideration for awarding compensation, as compensation has to be awarded on the basis of regular income and not on the basis of temporary income. I, therefore, find fault with the Tribunal in taking into consideration the meeting allowance and the income from the sale-purchase credit society, as income for awarding compensation. 9. Next is the income from agriculture. The 7/12 extracts show the deceased and his brother as holder of about three hectares of land jointly. Ex.42 shows existence of a well in the field. The crop that is taken is shown as sweet lime. Even if the share of deceased is 1.75 hectares and the land being irrigated with the crop of sweet lime and other fruits is taken into consideration, I do not think that the Tribunal has committed any error in taking the income at Rs.3,000/-per month. To sum up, I find the total income from all sources at Rs.74,000/-per year. Deducting 1/3rd from this income, the dependency of the family comes to Rs.50,000/-. The multiplier of 13, looking to the age of the deceased, is required to be adopted. The compensation comes to Rs.6,50,000/-to which an amount of Rs. To sum up, I find the total income from all sources at Rs.74,000/-per year. Deducting 1/3rd from this income, the dependency of the family comes to Rs.50,000/-. The multiplier of 13, looking to the age of the deceased, is required to be adopted. The compensation comes to Rs.6,50,000/-to which an amount of Rs. one lac is required to be added since the Tribunal did award compensation towards love and affection etc. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.7,50,000/-. 10. The award of interest at 7.5% by the Tribunal will have to be confirmed since the same is in consonance with the interest awarded by the apex court. In the result, I make the following order. ORDER (i) F.A. No.581 of 2010 is partly allowed with proportionate costs. (ii) Award of the Tribunal is modified. In place of compensation of Rs.9,58,000/-, the same shall be read as Rs.7,50,000/-. (iii) CAF No.2951/10 for withdrawal of the amount is disposed of. (iv) The balance amount of compensation be paid to the claimants within three months.