JUDGMENT The appeal is to question the validity and legality of the Judgment and Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 28 of 1995 awarding sum of Rs. 6,10,000/- inclusive of no fault liability together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization. 2. Rajendra, deceased was a Commission Agent for the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Unit Trust, Housing and financial Consultant as also was an agriculturist. On 07.08.1994, he was proceeding by a Hero-Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-31/L2293 coming from Shankar Nagar square, Nagpur and was dashed by Maruti Car bearing registration No. MH-31/4834 owned by Govardhandas Ramchandra Kela, resident of Nagpur and insured with appellant/Insurer. The Tribunal had considered the income of the victim from 01.04.1991 till 1993-1994 in the sum of Rs. 68,293, Rs.74,429, Rs.83,367 on the basis of Income Tax returns of the victim (Exh Nos.42 to 44). Considering the age of the victim and prospective increase in the income, it was taken as Rs.90,000/- p.a. - one-third amount towards personal expenses Rs.30.000/- = Rs.60,000/- p.a. x 10 as multiplier = Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- was added as compensation towards mental agony and pain. Thus, a sum of Rs.6,10,000/- was awarded as compensation inclusive of the sum awarded as no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. The appellant has challenged the award by the Tribunal on the ground that the deceased as a driver of the motorcycle was proportionately more negligent and compensation ought to have been restricted in proportion to the contributory negligence of the Maruti car driver. It is contended that the deceased as a driver of the motorcycle was liable for the contributory negligence for at least 25% for the motor vehicle accident and therefore, the liability of the appellant could have been proportionately reduced accordingly. According to learned Advocate, the motorcycle driver suddenly came in front of the car and the accident had occurred. Furthermore it is submitted that the agricultural income would continue to accrue even after demise of the victim. Multiplier was also chosen on higher side at 10 instead of at 6 considering the ages of the claimants. Learned Advocate has prayed to allow the appeal by reducing the compensation. 4. Learned Advocate for the respondent, however, denied that the victim was negligent while driving his motor cycle. Multiplier was also chosen on higher side at 10 instead of at 6 considering the ages of the claimants. Learned Advocate has prayed to allow the appeal by reducing the compensation. 4. Learned Advocate for the respondent, however, denied that the victim was negligent while driving his motor cycle. It is contended that the pecuniary losses on account of loss of prospective income shall also be considered at 30% above the proved income of the victim and further the adequate damages were not awarded under the conventional heads, mental agony and pains for untimely death of son for irreparable loss of earning family member of the claimant's family. Learned Advocate for the respondent has filed cross objection on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred to hold annual income of the deceased at Rs.90,000/- only and interest was granted only @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition as also while fixing the multiplier at 10, less compensation of Rs.6,10,000/- only was granted. Thus, the learned Advocate for the respondent demanded a sum of Rs.28,12,224 with interest @ 12% p.a. as appropriate compensation according to him. 5. I have perused the record in the light of these submissions. There was no any evidence of an independent eye-witness. No witness has entered in the witness box to depose about the alleged contributory negligence as canvassed in this Court. Documentary evidence FIR (Exh. 36), Spot Panchnama (Exh. 37), Inquest (Exh. 38) leads to inescapable inference that the driver of the Maruti car drove it rashly and negligently and forcibly dashed the Motorcycle of the victim and caused his death. Conduct of Maroti car driver is relevant. He had fled away from the scene. P.M. Notes (Ex 39) revealed multiple wounds on the body of victim who died on account of fracture of the skull bone and intracranial hemorrhage due to vehicular accident. Motorcycle was found smashed. There was neither any injury to the driver of the Maruti car nor any evidence of substantial damage to the Maruti Car to assume negligence on the part of the motorcyclist (deceased victim). The accident had occurred in a crowded locality wherein the Maruti car could not have been driven rashly and in the high speed. Motorcycle was found smashed. There was neither any injury to the driver of the Maruti car nor any evidence of substantial damage to the Maruti Car to assume negligence on the part of the motorcyclist (deceased victim). The accident had occurred in a crowded locality wherein the Maruti car could not have been driven rashly and in the high speed. In a trial before the Tribunal, strict rules of evidence, as in a criminal case, are not applicable, but test of proof is as in summary proceedings or in a Civil case which is tested upon preponderance of probabilities. Strict proof of FIR, inquest panchanama, postmortem notes, death certificate is not required as in a Criminal trial as the Act has beneficial and social welfare object to adequately compensate victims of motor vehicle accidents. There is no evidence led about the alleged contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to proportionately reduce the amount of compensation on this count. There is no ground to believe that the deceased was rash and negligent and in any manner, caused or contributed to the motor vehicle accident in the present case. The contention by learned Advocate for the appellant in this regard is not acceptable because considering the evidence in the case it appears baseless and unfounded. That being so, no serious infirmity can be noticed, which can completely dislodge the case of the claimants. 6. The next question is about justness of the compensation quantum. The evidence of Chartered Accountant (Witness no.2) was led to prove the annual income of the victim vide Certificate (Exh.42). Deceased has earned commission of Rs.43,326 in the year 1991-1992 (Exh.44). Regarding continuing accrual of the agricultural income, it is in evidence that the claimants are not able to look after the property capably due to their old age. Although it is not impossible to cultivate the agricultural land through others even in the absence of their son, the permanent loss of helping hands of claimant's only son has to be compensated adequately. 7. Although it is not impossible to cultivate the agricultural land through others even in the absence of their son, the permanent loss of helping hands of claimant's only son has to be compensated adequately. 7. We must take into account the over-all effect of evidence led while in juxtaposition reasonably considering the factors of life expectancy, future earnings and contribution that deceased would have made had he been alive; bearing in mind prospects of his better wages and better employment or profession in the future and also the imponderable that may enter in mind like likelihood of premature death of victim or his dependents while we consider the future prospects of unfortunate victim, who died at young age as also growing inflation and imponderables that may enter into mind. Pleasures that may be fruits of Award and pains in the life of claimants caused by the accidental demise in the family need to be evaluated notionally to arrive at just, proper and fair compensation. It must be factually righteous, equitable compensation, correct as far as possible to restore the claimants to pre-accidental position and not the Jackpot for claimants to bestow quick riches upon them. 8. The Apex Court in the ruling in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2012(5) Mh.L.J. 527 : [2012 ALL SCR 1292] expressed its opinion in para 11 thus : "Although, the legal jurisprudence developed in the country in the last five decades is somewhat precedent -centric, the judgments which have bearing on socioeconomic conditions of the citizens, and issues relating to compensation payable to victims of motor accidents, those who are deprived of their lands and similar matters needs to be frequently revisited keeping in view the fast changing societal values, the effect of globalization on the economy of the nation and their impact on the life of the people." 9. As per dictum of Apex court in case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2012 (6) SCC 421 : [2012 ALL SCR 1292], which has been affirmed in case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563, the future prospects should have been computed at 30% in view of the age of the deceased. Ltd. & Ors. 2012 (6) SCC 421 : [2012 ALL SCR 1292], which has been affirmed in case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563, the future prospects should have been computed at 30% in view of the age of the deceased. A person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident, then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. Endeavour of the Court is to ensure as far as possible to put the claimant or dependents to the pre-accidental position and, therefore, the prospective pecuniary loss is also required to be considered because really speaking the pecuniary loss can restore the life lost or limb lost. The non-pecuniary losses for damages on account of loss of happiness, pains, sufferings and expectancy of life etc. deserves to be compensated by adequate and just award of compensation with due regard to the facts of the case. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation amount is just, fair and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case and not a bonanza, largesse or source of profit as observed in Sarla Verma's case (supra). The Apex Court suggested deduction of personal expenses from the net annual earnings of the deceased tabularised by me as under : (A). If deceased was bachelor (unmarried). Deduction of self maintenance 50 per cent (half) if Parents are dependants 1/3rd (One-third) if Parents; brothers; sisters. (B). If deceased was married Deduction for self-maintenance Dependents One-half Parents only or widow only One-third Parents, widow, child 2/3rd one to three One-fourth 4 to 6 One-fifth 6 or more 10. Bearing in mind the above principles, the average loss of income for the dependents per month can safely be computed on the enhanced basis of Rs. 1,12,500/- per year plus 30% increase (Rs.90,000 + Rs.22,500 = Rs.1,12,500) minus 50% deduction towards personal expenses as parents are only the claimants at multiplicand of Rs.56,250/- loss of dependency per year. The multiplier has to be appropriate considering the age of deceased as also ages of parents and other dependents. There is no rigid rule or mathematically exact formula of universal application. The multiplier has to be appropriate considering the age of deceased as also ages of parents and other dependents. There is no rigid rule or mathematically exact formula of universal application. The relevant factors considered objectively and collectively bearing in mind ages of dependents and age of the deceased and by juxtaposing or off-setting the balance considered. The rough and ready broad formula that crops up in mind on the basis of leading rulings on the subject in respect of motor vehicle accidental death compensation claims by the dependents towards pecuniary loss is to ascertain multiplicand of net annual loss of dependency after deducting self-maintenance or personal expenses of the deceased and then to multiply it by an appropriate multiplier so as to ensure that dependents can get the capital amount that would in normal course yield interest equal to the monthly or yearly dependency for the period of dependency expected to last. As observed in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3056 : [2010(1) ALL MR 441 (S.C.)] (para 25), the Court is dutybound and entitled to award "just compensation" irrespective of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not. 11. To explain it in terms of formula : – Rs.90,000/- yearly earnings of the deceased + Rs.22,500/- 30% for increase in income prospectively = Rs.1,12,500/-. As parents of the victim are only claimants, fifty percent to be deducted, hence (minus-) Rs.56,250/- personal expenses/self-maintenance depending upon number of dependents in family = Rs.56,250 loss of yearly dependency multiplied by a chosen, appropriate multiplier 10 which is felt appropriate juxtaposing the age of the deceased and ages of the parents of the victimclaimants herein (as guided in Sarla Verma's case supra) Rs.56,250 x 10 = 5,62,500/- loss of dependency for expected span of lifetime of claimants computed at least for period of 10 years + Rs.3000/- funeral expenses + Rs.5,000/- loss of love and affection + Rs.5,000 loss of estate = Rs.5,75,500/-. Total compensation for motor vehicle fatal accident claim + 9% p.a. simple interest payable under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the date of petition 17.01.1995 till full payment = required to be paid as just and fair compensation (inclusive of no-fault liability paid). 12. The appeal and cross objection must be partly allowed accordingly. Total compensation for motor vehicle fatal accident claim + 9% p.a. simple interest payable under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the date of petition 17.01.1995 till full payment = required to be paid as just and fair compensation (inclusive of no-fault liability paid). 12. The appeal and cross objection must be partly allowed accordingly. The judgment and award need to stand modified accordingly. Hence, the order. ORDER The appeal and cross objections are partly allowed with proportionate costs and disposed off as under: The appellant and the owner of the offending motor vehicle Maruti Car bearing registration no.MH-31/4834 are held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,75,500/- together with 9% p.a. thereon from the date of the petition till realization. The amount already deposited by the insurer be appropriated and adjusted for payments by the Tribunal with payments already made to the claimants, after the requisite payment of court fees by the claimants and the compensation amount in balance be disbursed subject to the conditions as the Tribunal may think it fit for to ensure continuing payments of amount of dependence livelihood to the dependents-claimants or survivor of them for their lifetime. Amount deposited and not yet withdrawn by the claimants be sent back to the Tribunal for the disbursement accordingly. Excess amount deposited, if any, be refunded to the depositor. The record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal for execution of the award. Ordered accordingly.