JUDGMENT AND ORDER : By this appeal by the claimant, the mother of the deceased, the judgment and award dated 16.07.2015 delivered in T.S. (MAC) No. 123 of 2012, has been challenged primarily on two grounds viz (i) determination of income is dehors the evidence and (ii) the amount awarded for loss of affection is too meager that cannot be termed just and reasonable compensation. 2. Heard Mr. S.B. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant, Mr. B. Banerji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, Mr. A. Gon Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. None appears for the respondent No. 1 despite due notice from this Court. 3. There is no controversy in respect of the accident that occurred on 11.11.2011 for rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing No. AS-17-B-2121 owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured by the respondent No. 4. The said truck dashed the Bolero Maxi Truck bearing No. TR-4-A-1565 owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured by the respondent No. 3. As a result of the said accident, Niranjan Roy and another Gopal Roy died at the spot. Niranjan Roy is the son of the claimant appellant, at the time of the accident the deceased was 20 years of age and according to the claimant-appellant he was earning a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month. The compensation as sought by the claimant appellant by filing an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act was Rs. 12,92,000/-. 4. After recording the evidence, the tribunal has clearly held that for rash and negligence driving of the truck bearing No. AS-17-B-2121, the said accident occurred causing the death of the son of the claimant-appellant. There is no challenge against the said finding. However, the tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month. 5. Mr. S.B. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant has submitted that the employer namely, Malay Roy (PW2) came to the tribunal and clearly stated that the monthly income of the deceased was 9,000/- at the time of death. This was confronted by the respondent No. 4 in the cross-examination. 6. The claimant-appellant claimed that his son’s monthly income can be conveniently gathered from the testimony of the said PW2. Mr. This was confronted by the respondent No. 4 in the cross-examination. 6. The claimant-appellant claimed that his son’s monthly income can be conveniently gathered from the testimony of the said PW2. Mr. Debnath, learned counsel has contended that finding as returned by the tribunal is absolutely unsustainable. He has also urged that for the loss of love and affection by the mother proper compensation has not been accounted for. Thus, this Court has been urged for due non-pecuniary damage on account of loss of love and affection in terms of the Apex Court’s decisions. 7. From the other side, Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 has submitted that the determination of the income by the tribunal cannot be faulted with, inasmuch as, mere oral statement in the tribunal cannot be the wheresome basis of such determination. No payment register or appointment letter has been submitted by the claimant-appellant or by PW2 in the tribunal. As such, the tribunal on considering the various aspects, has embarked on for determining what would be the income of the deceased at the relevant point of time. The factors, aspects which were considered, cannot be held irrelevant. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the records, this Court finds that the determination of the income by the tribunal even though based on a sound guess work but the rate of the wage per day as determined, is on the lower side. It should have been more than what the tribunal has decided. Without going down to an exhaustiveness meticulous projection, this Court finds that the monthly income of the deceased would be appropriate if the monthly income of the deceased is determined at Rs. 6,000/- per month. 9. Thus, the loss of dependency be calculated as under : Monthly income Rs.6,000/- Loss of future prospect Rs.3,000/- Total monthly income index Rs.9,000/- Since the deceased was a bachelor and the mother is the sole claimant, from that sum 50% shall be deducted. Thus, on deduction the income index would go down to Rs. 4,500/- per month. The Annual monthly income index therefore, would be Rs. 54,000/-. 10. There is no dispute that considering the age of the deceased the multiplier that would be applied is 18. Thus, the loss of the dependency would come to Rs. 9,72,000/-. Thus, on deduction the income index would go down to Rs. 4,500/- per month. The Annual monthly income index therefore, would be Rs. 54,000/-. 10. There is no dispute that considering the age of the deceased the multiplier that would be applied is 18. Thus, the loss of the dependency would come to Rs. 9,72,000/-. With the said sum for transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses a further compensation may be determined by the tribunal at Rs. 25,000/-. For loss of love and affection another sum of Rs. 1,00000/- be added as the claimant-appellant has lost her son. Thus, the total compensation is assessed at Rs. 10,97,000/-. 11. The said award shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the claim application i.e. 16.03.2012 till the payment is made. The respondent No. 4 being the insurer of the offending vehicle bearing No. AS-17-B-2121 shall pay the awarded sum within a period of 2 months from today in the tribunal on deducting the sum, if any, they have paid. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Draw the award accordingly. Send down the LCRs. Copy of this judgment and order be furnished to the learned counsel appearing for the parties.