JUDGMENT SANJU PANDA, J. : Since both the appeals arise out of a common award, one filed by the Insurance Company and the other by the claimants, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2.MACA No.1 of 2012 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 25.10.2011 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in M.A.C. No.25 of 2007. MACT No.62 of 2012 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount challenging the aforesaid award. 3.The facts leading to the present appeals are as follows : On Mathurananda Nayak and Jita Nayak along with two others on 16.12.2006 while coming from Cuttack side towards Aredi on N.H. No.5 by a Car bearing Registration No.OR-02-S-0565, a Truck bearing Registration No.OR-09-E-6357 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came from Panikoili side caused the accident. As a result of the said accident, the above two persons along with driver of the Car sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The claimants are wife and sons of the deceased-Mathurananda Nayak, who was aged about 36 years and working as a Senior Information Systems Analyst under Traci Cagle Human Resource Representative Xilinx Inc-2100 Logic Drive San Jose, CA-95124, U.S.A. and he was earning $ 97,080,60 per annum. The claimants specifically averred that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which was insured with the appellant-Company and they have impleaded the owner and Insurance Company as parties to the claim application since they are vicariously and statutorily liable to pay the compensation and accordingly they have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of Jita Nayak, who was the mother-in-law of claimant No.1 in MACA No.5 of 2012, filed by the Insurance Company challenging the selfsame award in respect of compensation awarded for the death of Jita Nayak. However, the appeal was dismissed on 6.7.2012, as the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.1,29,500/- awarded by the Tribunal was reasonable and fair. 4.The owner of the offending vehicle was set ex parte. However, the appeal was dismissed on 6.7.2012, as the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.1,29,500/- awarded by the Tribunal was reasonable and fair. 4.The owner of the offending vehicle was set ex parte. The appellant-insurer filed its written statement taking a plea that there was head on collusion between two vehicles and the insured of the Car, wherein the deceased persons were traveling shall be liable and shall be saddled with 50% liability and they have denied the age, occupation, income of the deceased person, particularly, Mathurananda Nayak and also sought protection under Sections 147, 149 and 170 of the M.V. Act, 1988. On the aforesaid reason, the claimants in support of their claim examined 3 witnesses including claimant No.1 as P.W.1 and exhibited police papers i.e. F.I.R. final form, seizure list, zimanama, inquest report, dead body challan, post mortem report, salary certificate of the deceased-Mathurananda Nayak and tax return of the years 2005 and 2006, passport of the deceased, the copy of permannet resident card, authorization letter to P.C. Mohanty, summons to witness, which have been marked as exhibits. The appellant on the other hand did not adduce any evidence to substantiate its plea. 5.On analyzing the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the findings that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-09-E-6357 (Truck) the accident took place as a result of which Mathurananda Nayak and Jita Nayak succumbed to their injuries. The offending vehicle was validly insured with the Insurance Company and there was no violation of any policy condition. The monthly salary of the deceased - Mathurananda Nayak was Rs.3,64,052/- ($ 8090.05) and deceased was 36 years and applied “15” multipliers as per the decision of the apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarala Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another., (2009) 43 OCR (S.C.) 349. Taking into consideration the price of 1 Dollar equal to Rs.45/-, the annual income of the deceased was calculated at Rs.43,68,624/- deducting 1/3rd towards self expenses, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.4,36,86,240/- and Rs.9,500 towards loss of statutory consortium and total compensation was calculated at Rs.4,36,95,740/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which was just and fair compensation payable to the petitioners. 6.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has calculated the quantum of compensation on higher side however the findings of the Tribunal on all other aspects are not disputed. He has further submitted that the compensation amount if deposited in a bank, it will fetch nearly Rs.65,000/- towards interest per month. Therefore, the compensation amount need be interfered with. 7.Learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents in support of the plea taken in MACA No.62 of 2012 submitted that the claimants are entitled to higher compensation. Taking into account the future prospects of the deceased and since the deceased was in a settled job, 50% of the salary should have been taken into consideration for computing compensation and instead of taking Rs.49.26 as the price of one Dollar, as was prevalent then, it has been calculated at Rs.45.00. Accordingly the compensation amount should have been enhanced to Rs.2,00,00,000/- crores more by the Tribunal. 8.Taking into consideration the rival submissions of the parties and the findings of the Tribunal, this Court confirms the findings of the Tribunal except the quantum of compensation is concerned. 9.In view of the above, the quantum of compensation is only the subject matter of dispute in this appeal. The claimants have adduced evidence in respect of the compensation and they have produced the salary certificate of the deceased as well as tax return filed by the deceased in the years 2005 and 2006 which are not disputed. It appears that the deceased has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.4,67,00,000/-. 10.Law is well settled that the Tribunal is required to make just and reasonable award determining the amount of compensation payable to the dependents of the victim on a fatal vehicular accident. The Tribunal constituted under the Act and is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which is to be in the real sense ‘damages’ which it appears to be just and reasonable. The loss of life or part of the body hardly to be weighed on rupees, but at the same time, it has to be keep in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. The provisions in the Act clearly stipulate that the compensation amount must be just and it cannot be a bonanza not a source of profit. The provisions in the Act clearly stipulate that the compensation amount must be just and it cannot be a bonanza not a source of profit. The Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation which should be just and reasonable and there can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or part of a body. The loss sustained by the claimants cannot be replaced in any manner. However, the measure of damages can not be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations and depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, attaining peculiar or special features, if any, and all the method or mode adopted for calculating compensation has to be considered in the background of “just compensation”. The determination has to be rational to be done by a judicious approach and not the out come of whims, wild busses and arbitrariness. The expression “just” denotes equitability, fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrary. 11.Keeping the above principle enunciated in the case of Helen C Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1998 SC 3191 in view and taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was serving at U.S.A. and was getting monthly salary in Dollar at the time of accident, the Tribunal has only deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and has not deducted anything towards income tax as revealed from the impugned award and the other expenses to maintain his status at U.S.A. Taking into consideration all aspects, status and life at U.S.A. and journey of the deceased to Odisha intermittently being an Indian origin, interest of justice would be best served if the compensation amount is reduced from Rs.4,36,95,740/- to Rs.3,75,00,000/- only. 12.Accordingly, this Court reduces the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,36,95,740/- to Rs.3,75,00,000/- (Rupees three crores and seventy five lakhs) with the interest as stipulated by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of payment and directs the Insurance Company to deposit the same before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks hence. It is further directed that out of the compensation amount, a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) be kept in shape of fixed deposit in any nationalized bank in the names of the claimants-appellants jointly for a period of six years and the balance awarded amount with accrued interest shall be paid to the claimants-appellants in shape of cash on proper application/identification after deducting the Court fee, if any. 13.The statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company in M.A.C.A. No.1 of 2012 before this Court be refunded to it with accrued interest after showing the receipt of deposit of the modified compensation along with interest before the Tribunal on proper application. 14.Accordingly, MACA No 1. of 2012 is allowed in part and M.A.C.A. No.62 of 2012 is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.