JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The appellants - claimants have preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, laying challenge to the judgment and award dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta whereby a sum of RS.12,51,250/- has been determined by the Tribunal. 2. One Munna Ram died in an accident, for which his legal representatives - appellants filed a claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. Neither the factum of accident nor the negligence of the driver are in dispute and the appeal has been preferred only being dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal; hence this Court does not deem it necessary to narrate and deal with other facts in detail. 4. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants contended that though the claimants had produced a documentary evidence evincing the monthly salary of the deceased to be Rs.9,000/- per month, yet the Tribunal below has reckoned his monthly income only as Rs.7,000/-. He invited attention of this Court towards the certificate issued by his employer and the statement of AW-3 - Hanumana Ram the accountant of his employer Firm, in support of his contention that the claimants have proved beyond doubt that the monthly salary of deceased Munna Ram was Rs.9,000/-. 5. Mr. Choudhary in light of these evidence contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be appropriately enhanced. 6. Mr. Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal is required to determine just compensation and in view of the evidence and material available before the Tribunal, it has reckoned monthly salary of the deceased Munna Ram as Rs.7,000/-, which is reasonable, rather on higher side; and that there is no error in the impugned award. Learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company invited attention of this Court towards the statement of Hanumana Ram - AW-3, particularly his cross-examination and contended that the testimony of said witness, who had been brought in the witness box to substantiate their assertion about the income of the deceased, does not inspire confidence. Learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company invited attention of this Court towards the statement of Hanumana Ram - AW-3, particularly his cross-examination and contended that the testimony of said witness, who had been brought in the witness box to substantiate their assertion about the income of the deceased, does not inspire confidence. It will not be out of place to reproduce the crossexamination of the said witness made by the Insurance Company, which reads thus:- ftjg chek dEiuh & gekjh QeZ esa deZpkfj;ksa dh nh tkus okyh ixkj dh ,ot esa jkstukepk o iDdh jksdM esa gLrk{kj ugh djok;s tkrsA eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugh gS fd :- 500@& ekfld T;knk ls ixkj dh Hkqxrku djus ij jsosU;q fVdV yxkdj fVdV ij gLrk{kj djok;s tkrs gS ;k ughaA ;g lgh gS fd gekjh QeZ vk;dj nsrh gSA QeZ esa deZpkfj;ksa dks nh tkus okyh ixkj dh vadu vk;dj foofj.kdk esa fd;k tkrk Fkk ;k ugh bldksa tkudkjh eq>s ugh gS QeZ ekfyd gh crk ldrk gSA e`rd dk lkjh ixkj udn nsrs Fks vt[kqn dgk uksVcanh ds ckn ixkj tfj;s pSd gh tk jgh gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd e`rd eqUukjke dks pSd ls Hkqxrku dk dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugh fd;k A QeZ ij dke djus okys deZpkfj;ksa dh dksbZ dVkSrh ugh gksrh FkhA e`rd mDr QeZ es dke djrk Fkk bl ckr dk bUnzkt Je foHkkx esa djok;k gqvk Fkk ;k ugh bl ckr dk eq>s irk ughA gekjh QeZ ls e`rd ds gd esa dksbZ 16A ucaj dk QkWeZ vk;dj ds lac/k esa tkjh ugh fd;k x;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd QeZ dk ekfyd vkSj e`rd ,d gh lekt ds FksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd izn'kZ 22 yxk;r 34 ds lHkh bUnzktkr >wBk Dyse fnykus dh xjt ls ,d gh fnu esa cSBdj rS;kj fd;s x;s gks ;g dguk lgh gS fd fu;qfDr izek.k i= tkjh ugh fd;k x;k FkkA e`rd i<+h fy[kh Fkk rFkk e`rd tks dke djrk Fkk oks vuo< O;fDr ugh dj ldrkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa vkt >wBs c;ku ns jgk gksmWaA ftjg vizkFkhZ la- 1 o 2 & dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA iqu ijh{k.k & NIL 7. A simple look at the deposition made by their witness, the Accountant of the Firm (in which the deceased Munna Ram used to serve), revels that he has gone overboard to support the cause of the claimants. 8. A simple look at the deposition made by their witness, the Accountant of the Firm (in which the deceased Munna Ram used to serve), revels that he has gone overboard to support the cause of the claimants. 8. The monthly income of the deceased cannot be considered as Rs.9,000/-, in view the apparent incongruity in his statement, which is evident from a reading of the above quoted crossexamination. 9. It is trite position of law that the Tribunal is required to determine just compensation as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 , more particularly para 31 thereof, which is being reproduced hereunder:- "31. Section 168 of the 1988 Act provides the guideline that the amount of compensation shall be awarded by the Claims Tribunal which appears to it to be just. The expression, "just" means that the amount so determined is fair, reasonable and equitable by accepted legal standards and not a forensic lottery. Obviously "just compensation" does not mean "perfect" or "absolute" compensation. The just compensation principle requires examination of the particular situation obtaining uniquely in an individual case." 10. The surgical precision in calculating the amount of compensation is not warranted. In overall assessment, the income assessed and the quantum of compensation determined vide impugned award is just and proper. 11. No other argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. The impugned award is otherwise in consonance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 . 12. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and award; hence the appeal filed by the appellants is rejected.