JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.06.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. TS (MAC) 131/2013 whereby and where under the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.15,95,550/- considering all statutory benefits. 2. Being aggrieved, the Insurance company has preferred the instant appeal before this Court only on the sole ground that the learned Tribunal has committed error in determining the compensation on the basis of the income of deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month in absence of any proof of the said income. 3. On consideration of the grounds as submitted by Ms R Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Co. this Court deems it fit to confine itself to the issue as to whether the claimant has been able to prove his income @ Rs.10,000/- per month. Another question which this Court requires to decide is whether the Tribunal can consider an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to be the income of the deceased only on guess work, in absence of any proof in this regard. 4. There is no dispute in regard to the accident. Mr. DR. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has tried to persuade this Court that the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased @ Rs.10,000/- per month on the basis of the claim of the claimant that he was running a poultry farm and was also engaged in giving tuitions. The other grievance raised by Mr. Choudhury is against the decision of the Tribunal to deduct 1/3rd of the income of the deceased which he might have incurred for his personal expenses. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. I have perused the finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard. The learned Tribunal in para 9 of the judgment has simply stated that “…….from the deposition of PW 1 and 2 it could safely be presumed that the income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- per month.” While arriving at this finding even the learned Tribunal was not sure about the income of the deceased as the Tribunal has used the word „presumed’ which means that on mere speculation it has considered the income of the deceased @ Rs.10,000/- per month. 6. 6. The observation of the Tribunal in regard to the determination of income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- as reflected in the judgment is reproduced below: “9……..Now comes the most vital question i.e. what will be the quantum of compensation. From the deposition of PW 1 and 2 it could safely be presumed that the income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- per month. At this rate, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.10,000/- X 12 = Rs.1,20,000/-……” The learned tribunal did not make any endeavour to make analysis of the evidence laid by the claimants. 7. I have noticed that PW1, the mother of the deceased at para 5 of the examination-in-chief has simply stated that her son used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month from his business and private tuition. She is silent about the nature of business which the deceased was running. Even no documentary evidence has been submitted in support of the business of her son. In regard to private tuition, neither the students nor any of the guardians of the students were produced to substantiate her statement. Similar is the statement of PW2 who only has included the deceased had poultry farm business. If it is believed, then the mother, PW1 could have easily produced some documents relating to poultry farm business of her deceased son. At least, PW1 could produce bank statement in support of the business transactions of the poultry farm. In absence of any proof, it is hard to consider and believe the statement of PW2 as well as PW1. 8. In my opinion, the approach of the Tribunal is wholly illogical, irrational, arbitrary and against the principles for determination of just and fair compensation, which is the true object and spirit of the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. I am not unmindful of the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation. Simultaneously, the courts and tribunals also must be very cautious and should not be whimsical as because no unfettered discretion has been vested upon it to enrich a person. The principle is to award just and fair compensation to the dependents who have lost the enjoyment and comfort of the deceased, had he been alive, but not to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen them. 10. In a decision in Syed Basheer Ahamed & Ors., Vs. The principle is to award just and fair compensation to the dependents who have lost the enjoyment and comfort of the deceased, had he been alive, but not to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen them. 10. In a decision in Syed Basheer Ahamed & Ors., Vs. Mohammed Jameel & Anr., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 225 , the Apex Court dealing with a similar situation has observed: (SCC P.229, Para 13, 14, 15) “13. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining "the amount of compensation which appears to be just." `However, the objective factors, which may constitute the basis of compensation appearing as just, have not been indicated in the Act. Thus, the expression "which appears to the just" vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to determination of compensation. 14. Similarly, although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the persons liable to pay compensation. The determination of compensation must be based on certain data, establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependents of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded to them. In nutshell, the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimants has to be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards. 15. In Kerala SRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 ), M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) had observed that: (SCC p. 181, para 5) "5. …….the determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society "would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing". The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the "law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales". At the same time, a misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the "law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales". At the same time, a misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. The object of providing compensation is to place the claimants, to the extent possible, in almost the same financial position, as they were in before the accident and not to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen them.” 11. The decision of Syed Basheer Ahamed & Ors (supra) the main grievance of the appellant was that the High Court erred in reducing the monthly income of the deceased from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.4,000/-. More so, the claim of the appellants was that the deceased was earning about Rs.20,000/- per month. It was claimed that the deceased was carrying on a business. In the said case, the return of income for the current assessment year was submitted to substantiate the claim of the claimants. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. However, the High Court felt that in the light of the income tax declaring the income from the business carried by the deceased, the yearly income of the deceased was not more than Rs.40,000/- annually, and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in adopting the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month to work out the loss of dependency. According to the High Court, the monthly income of the deceased should have been taken at Rs.4,000/- per month. 12. The Apex Court laid emphasis that in so far as the question of earning of the deceased is concerned the onus lies on the claimants to prove this fact by leading reliable and cogent evidence before the Tribunal. A bare assertion in the claim petition in that behalf is not sufficient to discharge that onus. 12. The Apex Court laid emphasis that in so far as the question of earning of the deceased is concerned the onus lies on the claimants to prove this fact by leading reliable and cogent evidence before the Tribunal. A bare assertion in the claim petition in that behalf is not sufficient to discharge that onus. The Apex Court has further observed that “though the entries in the current account (Ext.P38) of the deceased and his transactions with his client, namely, Vasu Agarbathi (Ext.P23) may not per se be cogent evidence to determine the yearly or monthly income of the deceased from the businesses he was carrying on, yet we feel that these are some indicators in support of the appellant’s plea that the business income of the deceased in the succeeding years would be more than what was declared for the year ended 31.03.1998. It was also considered that a business may increase with the buoyancy in the business and at the same time may diminish with the recession in trade. Ultimately, in the referred case, the Apex Court held that ends of justice would be met if the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.5,500/- per month. 13. It is now well-entrenched principle that the claimant has to produce some reliable and cogent evidence to substantiate the question of earning of the deceased. In the realm of speculation, particularly when, unlike income from salaries, earnings in a business may increase with the buoyancy in business and at the same time may diminish with recession in trade. 14. In the circumstances, having regard to the material on record of the present case, in my opinion, ends of justice would be met if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.6,000/- per month (instead of Rs.10,000/- per month as determined by the Tribunal) or Rs.72,000/- per annum. The reason to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month is that today the wage of a daily labourer is not less than Rs.300/- per day who may work at least for 20 days in a month. So, his income per month would be Rs.300x20 (days)=Rs.6,000/-. This would be the income of the deceased per month, which according to this Court is reasonable. 15. The second fold of submission of Mr. So, his income per month would be Rs.300x20 (days)=Rs.6,000/-. This would be the income of the deceased per month, which according to this Court is reasonable. 15. The second fold of submission of Mr. Choudhury is that the Tribunal most illegally has deducted 50% for his personal expenses, is devoid of any merit. In this regard, the principle is well-settled by the pronouncement of the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 where in para 37 the Apex court has held as under: “39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down: (SCC p. 136) “30. ……… 31. ……….. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. ……..”” As the principle is well settled I reject the said submission of Mr. Choudhury. 16. Now, we should quantify the compensation considering the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,000 x 12 = Rs.72,000/-. In view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) 50% of his annual income is to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs.36,000/-. So we are left with (Rs.72,000 – Rs.36,000) = Rs.36,000/- which the deceased used to contribute to his family annually. Multiplying this amount by the multiplier 18 it would be Rs.6,48,000/-. 17. A sum of Rs.3,90,550/- for medical expenses was quantified by the Tribunal after perusing the copies of the bills paid and vouchers against medical expenses. In addition, placing reliance on the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. Accordingly, the consideration of figures against those conventional heads as determined by the learned Tribunal is set aside. So, the total amount of compensation now stands at Rs. In addition, placing reliance on the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. Accordingly, the consideration of figures against those conventional heads as determined by the learned Tribunal is set aside. So, the total amount of compensation now stands at Rs. (6,48,000 + 3,90,550 + 15,000 + 40,000 + 15,000) = 11,08,550/-. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Ordered accordingly. 18. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part and the judgment of the learned Tribunal stands modified to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.