JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the award and order, dated 18th March, 2005, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 38 of 2002, titled as Kirna Bala & others versus Swaroop Singh & others, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 2,33,400/­ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum was granted in favour of the claimants­ appellants from the date of the petition till its realization (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”). Brief facts: 2. It is averred in the claim petition that deceased, Shri Ram Rattan, became the victim of vehicular accident, which was caused by the offending vehicle­bus, bearing registration No. HP­20 A – 2452, on 18th June, 2002, being driven by its driver, respondent No. 1­Swaroop Singh, rashly and negligently, which hit the Motor Cycle, bearing registration No. PJL­4872, being driven by a mechanic and deceased­Ram Rattan was a pillion rider, near Amarali Mour, as a result of which Ram Rattan sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants­appellants filed claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of ‘ 10,00,000/­ as per the break­ups given in the claim petition. 3. The insurer, insured­owner and driver contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the objections. After examining the pleadings and the documents, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether Shri Ram Rattan who was sitting as pillion rider on motor cycle being driven by mechanic from Tahliwal to Polian Beet on dated 18.6.2002 at place Amrali Maur under PP Haroli was struck by the bus No. HP­20 A – 2452 of Partap Bus Service of respondent No. 2 and being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 1 and thereby caused fatal injuries to the person of said Ram Rattan who died on the spot, as alleged? ... OPP 2. If issue No. 1 proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners being LRs of deceased Ram Rattan are entitled for compensation, if so to what extent and from whom?...OPP 3.Whether the petition is bad for non­joinder of necessary parties? ... OPR 1 to 3 4. Whether the motor cycle driver had no valid and effective driving licence as alleged? .. If issue No. 1 proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners being LRs of deceased Ram Rattan are entitled for compensation, if so to what extent and from whom?...OPP 3.Whether the petition is bad for non­joinder of necessary parties? ... OPR 1 to 3 4. Whether the motor cycle driver had no valid and effective driving licence as alleged? .. OPR­3 5.Whether the driver of the bus No. HP –20 A – 2452 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? ... OPR­36.Whether the claimant was estopped to file the petition? ...OPR 7. Relief.” 4. The claimants­appellants examined witnesses in support of their claim. The Tribunal, after examining the entire record, decided all the issues in favour of the claimants­ appellants and against the respondents and awarded ‘ 2,33,400/­ as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization vide impugned award. 5. The owner­insured, driver and insurer­Insurance Company have not questioned the impugned award on any ground. Thus, it has attained finality so far it relates to them. The claimants­ appellants have questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 6. It is apt to record herein that the impugned award has attained finality so far it relates to the claimants also except so far it relates to adequacy of compensation. 7. The only question which needs to be determined in this appeal is ­ whether the amount awarded is just or otherwise? The answer is that the Tribunal has fallen in error and has not awarded the just compensation for the following reasons: 8. It is averred in the claim petition that the deceased was an agriculturist, was earning ‘ 6,000/­ per month. This fact has not been denied by the owner­insured, driver and insurer­Insurance Company. How the Tribunal has held that the deceased was earning ‘ 70/­ as wages per day is not forthcoming. The Tribunal has lost sight of the purpose, aim and object of granting compensation. Lest said is better. 9. Keeping all the facts in mind, I deem it proper to exercise guess work and hold that the minimum income of a labourer at that point of time was not less than ‘ 3,000/­ per month. The Tribunal has lost sight of the purpose, aim and object of granting compensation. Lest said is better. 9. Keeping all the facts in mind, I deem it proper to exercise guess work and hold that the minimum income of a labourer at that point of time was not less than ‘ 3,000/­ per month. Thus, I hold that the income of the deceased was ‘ 3,000/­ per month and after deducting one third towards his personal expenses, the claimants have loss of source of dependency to the tune of ‘ 2,000/­ per month. 10.Viewed thus, the appellants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ‘ 2,000 x 12 x 13 = ‘ 3,12,000/­. Thus, the impugned award merits to be enhanced and is enhanced as such. The appellants­claimants are also entitled for interest as granted by the Tribunal. 11. The enhanced amount alongwith interest be deposited within twelve weeks before the Registry of this Court. On deposition of the same, it be released in favour of the appellants strictly in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 12.The impugned award is, accordingly, modified and the appeal stands disposed of alongwith all miscellaneous applications.