Satish Chandra, J.;— Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award dated 28.03.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sitapur in Claim Petition No.440 of 2010. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.12.2010, at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased Raj Narain Tiwari along with his son Ankur Tiwar was going on his Motorcycle No. U.P. 34K-7134 from Sitapur to his residence. When he reached Navin Chowk, from the opposite side, a truck was coming, whose driver was driving the truck negligently and carelessly. The said truck hits the deceased, who died on the spot. The truck run away, but the son of the deceased Ankur Tiwari has noted down the number of the truck. Immediately, necessary F.I.R. was lodged. The claimants-respondents have filed a claim petition, where the Tribunal after examining the entire material has awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,22,000/-. Being aggrieved, the appellant i.e. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. has filed the present appeal. With this background, Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the award is in excess. He has not disputed the other points. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal, for the financial year 2010-11, has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.1,01,312/-, which was received from the L.I.C., as commission. He further submits that no income was shown for the previous year. In the subsequent year, it might have decreased. So, he submits that the income taken by the Tribunal is on higher side. For this purpose, he has relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamad and another vs. Mohd. Jameel and another, 2009 (1) T.A.C. 794 (SC), where it was observed that :- "though entires in current account of deceased and his transactions with his client may not per se be cogent evidence to determine yearly or monthly income of deceased, yet these are some indicators in support of claimants plea that business income in succeeding years could be more". Lastly, he made a request that the impugned award may kindly be set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the accident is not in dispute. The truck in question was insured by the appellant-Insurance Company. Lastly, he made a request that the impugned award may kindly be set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the accident is not in dispute. The truck in question was insured by the appellant-Insurance Company. On the date of accident, the insurance policy was effective. On the date of accident, the driving license of the driver was also valid. The only disputed point is pertaining to the quantum of the compensation. In the instant case, it appears that the deceased was an agent of L.I.C., who had received a sum of Rs.1,94,135/- for the earlier financial year. But during the financial year in question, when the accident took place, the income of the deceased was shown to Rs.1,01,312/-. The Tribunal has taken the income of the current year for the purpose of computation of the compensation, which appears reasonable. In future, it might be increased as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra). 1/3 of the income was deducted for the purpose of personal expenditure. By looking the age about 40-45 years, the multiplier of 15 was rightly applied. It may be mentioned that India is one of the countries with the highest number of road accidents. Motor accidents are everyday affairs. A large number of claims for compensation for injury caused by road accidents are pending in various Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In a fatal accident, the dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death. The most commonly practiced method of assessing the loss suffered is to calculate the loss for a year and then to capitalize the amount by a suitable multiplier. To that is added the loss suffered on account of loss of expectation of life and the like. The Courts have adopted divergent methods to determine the suitable multiplier. Even this Court has not been uniform; may be because the principle on which this method came to be evolved has been forgotten. It has, therefore, become necessary to examine the law and to state the correct principles to be adopted. It is true that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique frame that has been battered and shattered, as stated by Lord Merris in West v. Shepard (1964 AC 326). It has, therefore, become necessary to examine the law and to state the correct principles to be adopted. It is true that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique frame that has been battered and shattered, as stated by Lord Merris in West v. Shepard (1964 AC 326). Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind. Object of providing compensation is to place claimant as far as possible in the same position financially as he was before accident. Broadly speaking, in the case of death basis of compensation is loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependants of the deceased which includes pecuniary loss, expenses, etc. and loss to the estate. Object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the legal representatives due to sudden demise of the deceased in the accident. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and should neither be unreasonable, excessive, nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule for measuring value of human life and measure of damage cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculation; but amount recoverable depends on broad facts and circumstances of each case. It should neither be punitive against whom claim is decreed nor it should be a source of profit of the person in whose favour it is awarded. Upjohn L.J. in Charter House Credit v. Jolly (1963) 2 CB 683) remarked, 'the assessment of damages has never been an exact science; it is essentially practical'. The necessity that damages should be 'full' and 'adequate' was stressed by the Court by Queen's Bench in Fair v. London and North-Western Railway Co. (1869) 21 LT 326). The word 'compensation' is derived from Latin word "compensare" meaning "weigh together" or "balance". In Rushton v. National Coal Board (1953) 1 All. E.R. 314 it was observed: "Every member of this Court is anxious to do all he can do to ensure that the damages are adequate for the injuries suffered, so far as they can be compensated for an injury, and to help the parties and others to arrive at a fair and just figure." It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be 'just'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. In the light of above discussion and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The same is sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. The amount, if any, deposited in this Court shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal, within a period of two weeks, who is directed to pay the compensation at the earliest as per the award. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. _____________