JUDGMENT : 1. On 11th April, 2018, notice for final disposal of this appeal was issued to the respondents. Shri S.K. Bhoyar, the learned counsel appears for respondent nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6. Respondent no.4 is served, however nobody is appearing. 2. In view of the aforesaid order, this appeal is taken up for final hearing. ADMIT. Heard finally. 3. I have heard Shri M.B. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company and Shri S.K. Bhoyar, the learned counsel for the claimants. 4. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.11.2016 passed by the learned Chairman of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wardha in M.A.C.P. No. 26/2015. By the impugned award, the Court below directed the non-applicant nos.1 to 3 in the claim petition to pay to the claimants jointly and severally an amount of Rs.11,03,500/- inclusive of the compensation awarded under No Fault Liability together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization. 5. The appellant was non-applicant no.1 before the Court below. 6. The claimants before the Court below were the widow and daughters of deceased Gunwanta. On 19.12.2014, deceased Gunwanta was travelling in a Bolero jeep having registration No. MH31/CY7505 along with others. When the said Bolero jeep reached near mouza Janala on Mul – Chandrapur road at about 7.30 p.m., a travel bus having registration No. MH34/AB8138 came from opposite direction and gave dash to Bolero jeep resulting into fatal accident. Gunwanta also died when he was admitted in the hospital for the injuries. Gunwanta was the only earning member of the family and was a mason by his occupation. Being skillful mason, he used to earn Rs.500/- per day. At the time of death, he was only 35 years of age. With these basic averments, claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed and compensation was claimed. 7. Appellant – Insurance Company filed its written statement (Exh.20). The claim of the claimants that Gunwanta was a skillful mason and was earning Rs.500/- per day was specifically denied by the Insurance Company. On rival pleadings, issues were framed and the parties were permitted to adduce their respective evidence. 8. Respondent no.1 herein Smt. Savita filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence (Exh.26). She was cross-examined. The claim of the claimants that Gunwanta was a skillful mason and was earning Rs.500/- per day was specifically denied by the Insurance Company. On rival pleadings, issues were framed and the parties were permitted to adduce their respective evidence. 8. Respondent no.1 herein Smt. Savita filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence (Exh.26). She was cross-examined. The Insurance Company filed a Pursis (Exh.36) and intimated the Court below that the Insurance Company does not wish to lead any evidence. After the evidence, the Court below passed the impugned award. 9. According to Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, the amount of compensation as awarded by the Court below is on higher side. According to the appellant, in absence of any documentary proof that deceased Gunwanta was earning Rs.500/- per day, the Court below ought not to have granted any compensation. 10. There is no dispute that Gunwanta succumbed to his injuries which he suffered in an accident that occurred on 19.12.2014 when he was travelling in a Bolero jeep. The Court below found that the offence was registered against the driver of travel bus vide FIR Crime No.144/2014 (Exh.27). According to the Court below, the driver of travel bus was all alone responsible for the fatal accident. This particular finding of the Court below is not questioned before this Court by the Insurance Company. 11. It is also not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant – Insurance Company and on the day of the accident, the insurance policy was in force. 12. The Court below while considering the question of compensation, computed the income of the deceased @ Rs.165/- per day and not @ Rs.500/- per day as claimed by the claimants. The compensation has to be determined on the foundation of fairness and reasonableness. In fact, it can never be the arithmetical exercise alone. There cannot be a straight jacket formula also for the same. In the present case, the version of respondent no.1 – Savita that her husband was a skilled mason has gone unchallenged during her cross-examination at the hands of the appellant. It was never the case of the claimants that deceased was in employment with anybody. Thus, he was a self-employed person. In the present case, the version of respondent no.1 – Savita that her husband was a skilled mason has gone unchallenged during her cross-examination at the hands of the appellant. It was never the case of the claimants that deceased was in employment with anybody. Thus, he was a self-employed person. It is to be noted here that once the case of the claimant remained unchallenged about the factum that deceased was a skilled mason, there cannot be any other opinion that he must be earning. Since, he was a self-employed person and used to work as a skilled mason, we cannot expect any documentary proof that he was earning Rs.500/- per day. In addition to that, claimant – Savita is a rustic widow and claimant nos.2 and 3 are the daughters of deceased Gunwanta. 13. In the aforesaid, the learned Judge of the Court below if comes to a conclusion that deceased must have been earning Rs.165/- which is a minimum wage, in my view, cannot be termed as irrational and/or the fixation @ Rs.165/- per day is on higher side. 14. The Court below, in my view, has correctly granted compensation under the heads funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium to claimant no.1, towards love and affection and towards other amenities. Looking to the age of the deceased, the Court below has rightly applied the multiplier of 15. 15. After re-appreciation of the evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it cannot be said that the compensation determined by the Court below was on higher side. Consequently, no interference is required for in this appeal. 16. As per the order passed by this court, the appellant has deposited the amount, which is kept in fixed deposit. Since, the appeal is dismissed, the claimants will be entitled to withdraw the said amount. With this, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.