JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at Nadiad dated 21-4-2009 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.508 of 1991 by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs.15,29,500/- (after deducting 20% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased has awarded Rs.12,23,600/-) under different heads for the death of the deceased-Yatin Amulbhai Nayak, the appellant herein-original opponent No.3-United India Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred the present First Appeal. Cross Objections No.29 of 2012 has been preferred by the original claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2. Facts giving rise to the present First Appeal in short are that in a vehicular accident which took place on 24-3-1991 between Maruti Car No.GCY-288, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by the deceased and Metador No.GJ-5-T-1768, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by the original opponent No.1, the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him. Original claimants therefore filed the claim petition claiming Rs.23,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that the driver of the Metador was rash and negligent due to which the accident took place. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that the deceased at the time of accident was aged 34 years and was highly educated having possessed Ph.D. Degree and was running various industries in the names and styles of M/s R.M.Traders, M/s M.Acid and Chemicals, M/s Mangalam Transport and M/s Mangalam Quorry at Valsad. It was further the case on behalf of the original claimants that yearly income of the deceased was about Rs.1,25,000/-. 2.1 The claim petition was opposed by the appellant hereinoriginal opponent No.3-Insurance Company by filing written statement at Exh.19 denying the sole negligence on the part of original opponent No.1-driver of Metador and even denying the income of the deceased at Rs.1,25,000/- per annum as alleged and contended on behalf of the original claimants . 2.2 The learned Tribunal framed relevant issues. 2.3 In order to prove the negligence, the original claimants have produced following documentary evidences: (1) Complaint at Exh.60. (2) Panchnama at Exh.61. (3) Inquest report at Exh.63. (4) P.M. Report at Exh.62. 2.2 The learned Tribunal framed relevant issues. 2.3 In order to prove the negligence, the original claimants have produced following documentary evidences: (1) Complaint at Exh.60. (2) Panchnama at Exh.61. (3) Inquest report at Exh.63. (4) P.M. Report at Exh.62. (5) Affidavit at Exh.56. 2.4 On appreciation of evidence and considering the documentary evidences produced on record, the learned Tribunal has held the deceased contributory negligent to the extent of 20% and original opponent No.1-driver of Metador contributory negligent to the extent of 80%. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on contributory negligence is not under challenge before this Court. 2.5 To prove the income of the deceased at the time of accident, the claimants have led following oral as well as documentary evidences: Oral Evidences: (1) Original claimant No.1-widow of the deceased at Exh.56. (2) Chartered Accountant, Shri Dipakbhai D.Desai at Exh.72. Documentary Evidences: (1) Income Tax Return of the deceased for the AY 1989-90 at Exh.71. (2) School Leaving Certificate at Exh.64. (3) B.Sc. Degree Certificate at Exh.65. (4) Ph.D. Degree Certificate at Exh.66. 2.6 The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and adding further 50% towards future rise in income/prospective income, the learned Tribunal has considered the average income for the purpose of determining datum figure at Rs.50,000/- per annum. Thereafter, deducting one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying a multiplier of 15, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,00,000/- towards future loss of dependency. Awarding further Rs.29,500/- under conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded in all a sum of Rs.15,29,500/- and deducting 20% towards contributory negligence of the deceased, by the impugned judgment and award , the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,23,600/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in awarding Rs.15,00,000/- towards future loss of dependency, the appellant herein-original opponent No.3-insurance company, has preferred the present First Appeal. The original claimants have also preferred Cross Objections to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 4. Shri Maulik Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-insurance company, has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. The original claimants have also preferred Cross Objections to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 4. Shri Maulik Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-insurance company, has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum without giving any cogent reasons for arriving at such a finding. It is further submitted that despite the fact that even in the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 1989-90 and even as admitted by the Chartered Accountant, Shri Dipakbhai D.Desai, who was examined at Exh.72, in his cross-examination that he has no evidence to show the income of the deceased at Rs.1,23,442/- as on 31-3-1991, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in assessing income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present appeal and dismiss the Cross Objections preferred by the original claimants. 5. Shri Dhaval Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, has tried to support the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal by submitting that the learned Tribunal as such has not committed any error in assessing the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. He has fairly conceded that there is no evidence at all to show the income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. However, he has submitted that considering the educational qualifications possessed by the deceased and as the deceased was of young age at the time of accident, his potentiality to earn is required to be considered. It is submitted that therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, the educational qualification of the deceased and his potentiality to earn, the income of the deceased at the time of accident can safely be assessed at least at Rs.60,000/- per annum i.e. Rs.5,000/- per month. It is submitted that even otherwise, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in applying multiplier of 15 while awarding future economic loss. It is submitted that as the deceased at the time of accident was aged 34 years, multiplier of 16 was required to be applied. Making the above submissions, it is requested to pass appropriate order. 6. It is submitted that even otherwise, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in applying multiplier of 15 while awarding future economic loss. It is submitted that as the deceased at the time of accident was aged 34 years, multiplier of 16 was required to be applied. Making the above submissions, it is requested to pass appropriate order. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and have appreciated the entire evidence on record. 7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while awarding future economic loss, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. While considering the impugned judgment and award, it appears that while assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum, the learned Tribunal has not given any cogent reasons for arriving at such a finding. It is shocking to find that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum even after noting that the witness Shri Dipakbhai D.Desai, who was examined on behalf of the original claimants at Exh.72 in his cross-examination, has specifically admitted that he has no evidence to show the income of the deceased at Rs.1,23,442/- as on 31-3-1991. He has also submitted that there was a loss of income during the Assessment Year 1989-90 and therefore, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in assessing income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and that too without giving any cogent reasons. It also appears from paragraph 18 that the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased in the Assessment Year 1989-90 at Rs.38,060/-. However, it is required to be noted that and even as admitted by the witness Shri Dipakbhai D. Desai, who was examined on behalf of the original claimants at Exh.72 in his cross-examination that as such, as per the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 1989-90, there was a loss of income of Rs.38,060/-. It is an admitted position that there are no supporting documentary evidences at all produced on behalf of the claimants to prove the income of the deceased at the time of accident. Thus, the learned Tribunal has straightaway assessed/taken income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum without any supporting material or documentary evidence which cannot be sustained. It is an admitted position that there are no supporting documentary evidences at all produced on behalf of the claimants to prove the income of the deceased at the time of accident. Thus, the learned Tribunal has straightaway assessed/taken income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum without any supporting material or documentary evidence which cannot be sustained. 7.1 As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Grewal and Anr. v. Deep Chand Sood and Ors. reported in (2001)8 SCC page 151 in assessing damages, all relevant materials should and ought always be placed before the court so as to enable the Court to come to a conclusion in the matter of assessing pecuniary benefit by reason of the unfortunate death. It is also observed that though mathematical nicety is not required but a rough and ready estimate can be had from the records claiming damages since award of damages cannot be had without any material evidence: whereas one party is to be compensated, the other party is to compensate and as such there must always be some materials available therefor. It is further observed that it is not a fanciful item of compensation but it is on legitimate expectation of loss of pecuniary benefits. 8. It cannot be disputed and as such not disputed by Shri Maulik Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-insurance company that looking to the educational qualifications and even the family background of the deceased, the deceased must be doing something to earn his livelihood. It is required to be noted that the deceased at the relevant time was aged 34 years and was married having two children. He was highly educated possessing B.Sc. Degree and Ph.D. in Chemistry. It is true that in spite of having Ph.D in Chemistry, even according to the claimants, he was a businessman. However, as such, no documentary evidences have been produced at all to show that he was doing business and/or running various industries in the names and styles of M/s R.M.Traders, M/s M.Acid and Chemicals, M/s Mangalam Transport and M/s Mangalam Quorry at Valsad, as contended on behalf of the claimants. It is also true that for the first time when the deceased filed his Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 1989-90, he was having loss of income. It is also true that for the first time when the deceased filed his Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 1989-90, he was having loss of income. However, at the same time, as observed herein above, he was an able-body man having high educational qualifications and therefore, must be doing something to earn to maintain himself and his family members. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in catena of decisions, while assessing the damages and awarding compensation, some guess work is always permissible and the damage is to be ascertained on case to case basis. 8.1 In the case of Lata Wadhva and Others v. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2001)8 SCC page 197, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered and awarded the damages/compensation for the death of the housewife in an accident considering annual contribution at Rs.36,000/- i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month. In the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly considering the educational qualifications of the deceased; his young age and that he was married, having two children and was maintaining a car; the accident occurred in the year 1991 and considering the value of the rupee prevailing in the year 1991, we are of the opinion that if the income of the deceased for awarding compensation under the head of loss of dependency/future economic loss to the claimants is considered at Rs.4,000/-, it will meet the ends of justice and it can be said to be just and proper. Looking to his higher educational qualifications, if 50% of the above is added towards future rise in income, the prospective income would come to Rs.6,000/- p.m. and after deducting one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,000/- per month. As the deceased was aged 34 years, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009)6 Supreme Court Cases page 121, multiplier of 16 is required to be applied. It is required to be noted that no amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of loss of love and affection and loss of estate. Therefore, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.50,000/- in all under the head of loss of love and affection and loss of estate. It is required to be noted that no amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of loss of love and affection and loss of estate. Therefore, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.50,000/- in all under the head of loss of love and affection and loss of estate. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.7,68,000/- under the head of future loss of dependency; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,48,000/-. Deducting 20% towards negligence of the deceased i.e. Rs.1,69,600/-, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.6,78,400/- (rounded off to Rs.6,79,000/-) as compensation from the original opponents including the appellant herein-original opponent No.3-United India Insurance Company Ltd. for the death of the deceased-Yatin Amulbhai Nayak with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, First Appeal No.4494 of 2009 succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 21-4-2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.508 of 1991 is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.6,79,000/- as compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. thereon from the date of the claim petition till realisation for the death of the deceased-Yatin Amulbhai Nayak from the original opponents including the appellant herein-original opponent No.3-United India Insurance Company Ltd. 10. In view of the above findings, Cross Objections No.29 of 2012 filed by the claimants are required to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. 11. Since the appellant-Insurance Company had deposited Rs.6,23,600/- with 9% interest thereon and now it is held that the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.6,79,000/-, the appellant-Insurance Company to deposit the balance amount with interest @ 9% p.a. thereon from the date of the claim petition till realisation with the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today and the original claimants shall be permitted to withdraw the same after due identification and verification. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. 12. Registry is directed to send back the records and proceedings to the learned Tribunal forthwith. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. 12. Registry is directed to send back the records and proceedings to the learned Tribunal forthwith. Appeal dismissed.