JUDGMENT : Dr. Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J. 1. The brief and very interesting issue involved in this petition is with regards to the quantum of the income with special reference to agricultural income of the deceased. 2. Being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 30.9.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), at Vadodara in MACP No. 1931 of 2006, the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short). 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1. On 12.11.2001, deceased Rohitbhai Hasmukhlal Joshi was travelling on his motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-6-PP-4216 from VIP road to Waghodia road and when the deceased reached near Air-force gate on the VIP road, at that time, opponent No. 1 was coming from opposite direction driving the truck bearing registration No. GJ-6-V-7558 in a rash and negligent manner at an excessive speed and came on wrong track, dashed against the deceased, as a result of which deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to such injuries. 4. Appellant-insurance company filed the written statement at Exh. 19 contending that the claim petition is not true and correct. 4.1. It is made clear that learned advocate for the appellant-company has fairly not disputed issue of negligence but only quantum of award. 5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants it was contended that the deceased was doing the business of selling the insecticides agro-products and fertilizers and was earning Rs. 6,000/- p.m. and he was also cultivating the agricultural lands and earning Rs. 14,000/- p.m.. Thus, he used to earn total of Rs. 20,000/- p.m. It is further contended that deceased was maintaining the applicants from his earnings. The claimants therefore, filed the claim petition claiming Rs. 50,00,000/- as compensation. 6. After framing of issues, the learned trial Court awarded Rs. 30,43,280/-, which judgment and award is under challenge by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 7. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vehemently contended that learned Tribunal has committed gross mistakes so far as the quantum of income from agricultural land is concerned. Mr. 6. After framing of issues, the learned trial Court awarded Rs. 30,43,280/-, which judgment and award is under challenge by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 7. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vehemently contended that learned Tribunal has committed gross mistakes so far as the quantum of income from agricultural land is concerned. Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate, has fairly submitted that he is not contending on the legal liability of the Insurance Company so far as issue of negligence is concerned but vehemently contended that special reference to quantum of agricultural income is required to be made. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Anr. vs. Jasbir Kaur and Ors. reported in (2003) 7 SCC 484 he submitted that in the said case, the income of the decease therein was assessed at Rs. 4500/- p.m. but Hon'ble Apex Court has awarded Rs. 3500/- p.m. due to lack of material on record, since the deceased died. Thereafter the share was not proved by the deceased. In this case also, similar situation arises. It was submitted that there were approximately four brothers but the whole share from ancestral agricultural property is counted as individual income from agriculture. He submitted that this is the gross mistake of the learned Tribunal and, therefore, he has prayed for reducing the amount. 7.1. Learned advocate for the appellant-company further submits that claimants have not produced any evidence in form of sale and purchase of seeds, fertilizers and agricultural produce or payment of wages to labourers to prove that the income earned by the deceased towards his share in the ancestral land was Rs. 1,69,958/- p.a. Though the Income-Tax return is filed by the deceased for the year 2000-2001 but the same is just to avail housing loan from the bank. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought not to have held that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,69,958/- from agricultural income and ought not to have doubled it to assess prospective income of the deceased in absence of documents pertaining to shares of other members of family. 8. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant-company submits that as per the award under challenge dependency benefit is considered as Rs. 19,380/- per month and according to him as per Exh. 8. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant-company submits that as per the award under challenge dependency benefit is considered as Rs. 19,380/- per month and according to him as per Exh. 136 and considering the return of 1999-2000, it should be Rs. 4292/- p.m. In this regard he has relied on the decision in the case Kalpanaraj & Ors. vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation reported in (2015) 2 SCC 764 , particularly paragraph No. 8. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has considered the actual salary income of Rs. 29070/- per month and as per the learned advocate for the insurance company considering the prospective income at 40% it should be Rs. 6,008/- per month. For this learned advocate has relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , particularly paragraph 59.4. 9. Per contra, Mr. B.S. Patel, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 contended that judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with. 10. Though served, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 that is the driver and owner of the offending truck have chosen not to appear and contest the claim petition. 11. There is nothing on record which can drive us to arrive at an independent income of deceased from agricultural land and nothing was shown in books of account, nor in any notes, which can drive us to arrive at independent income of agricultural land of deceased. On the contrary there are more than one co-sharer at the agricultural land and therefore, we are inclined to intervene and modify the assessment made by learned tribunal to arrive at an independent agricultural income. 12. The gist of the controversy thus centers-round the aspect of extent of income from agricultural land to be attributable to the deceased while determining the quantum of compensation. It is not in dispute that the deceased was staying in the joint family. There is nothing on record to show or suggest that the deceased was the only person who had been earning and receiving income from agriculture land. Having considered this factual aspect that the deceased was not the sole person entitled to get the entire income from the agricultural land, income of the deceased from the source of agriculture could be properly taken at Rs. Having considered this factual aspect that the deceased was not the sole person entitled to get the entire income from the agricultural land, income of the deceased from the source of agriculture could be properly taken at Rs. 5,000/- per month. We do not agree with the submission of learned advocate for the appellant that it should be taken at Rs. 3,500/- per month. The figure of Rs. 5,000/- per month would be just and proper in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal considered Rs. 01,69,958/- per annum including income from business at Rs. 62,665/- per annum. As stated above, there is nothing on record on the basis of which it could be said that the entire income of Rs. 1,69,958/- was belonging to the deceased only. Although the income-tax returns were filed to that effect, however since it was joint and ancestral property shared by all the members and they are also the recipients of the agricultural income, we have considered Rs. 5,000/- per month as agricultural income for the deceased to be just and proper. 13. We have accordingly considered the factual aspect that the deceased was not the sole person entitled to income from the agricultural land and, therefore, instead of Rs. 3,500/- which was considered in the judgment relied on by learned advocate for the appellant-company, Rs. 5,000/- as income per month would be just and proper, since learned Tribunal has considered Rs. 1,69,958/- per annum including income from business at Rs. 62,665/- per annum. But as such there is nothing on record so far as income of Rs. 1,69,958/- is concerned for deceased himself, solely, though the income-tax return is filed to that effect but when the property is joint and when the property is an ancestral property and there are also other claimants of the agricultural lands, on that basis Rs. 5,000/- p.m. agricultural income is just and proper. In the case of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra) which is cited by learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, that after the death of the person concerned, the earning capacity is in existence or not is required to be examined. 14. In Jasbeer Kaur (supra), the following were the observations made by the Apex Court which deserve a reference. "7. In the case of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra) which is cited by learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, that after the death of the person concerned, the earning capacity is in existence or not is required to be examined. 14. In Jasbeer Kaur (supra), the following were the observations made by the Apex Court which deserve a reference. "7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be "just and reasonable". It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary If it is not so it cannot be just." 15. It is true that Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. Though court may lean towards the benefit of the victim of the accident, the actual assessment of the compensation has to abide by the legal parameters and the realistic consideration emerging from record. It is true that Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. Though court may lean towards the benefit of the victim of the accident, the actual assessment of the compensation has to abide by the legal parameters and the realistic consideration emerging from record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, what is essential is that the compensation should be just and proper compensation. 16. It is undisputed fact that the income from business of the deceased Rohitbhai was Rs. 62,655/- p.a. and thereafter by adding agricultural income Rs. 60,000/- p.a. (Rs. 5000 p.m.) and in all it arrives at Rs. 1,22,655/- and future prospects have to be considered at 40%, in that case, Rs. 49,062/- would be additional income. Therefore the prospective income comes to Rs. 1,71,717/-. Further by deducting 1/3rd towards dependency benefits, which comes to Rs. 57,239/-, the amount is arrived at Rs. 1,14,478/-. Applying multiplier of 15, it comes to Rs. 17,17,170/-. Further by adding amount of Rs. 70,000/- towards conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses in view of guidelines in Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra). This judgment and award of the learned Tribunal is required to be modified. 17. In light of above, the total amount of Rs. 17,87,170/- would be the just and proper compensation instead of Rs. 30,43,280/- as awarded by the Tribunal. As a result, the judgment and award of the Tribunal is set aside in part. It is held that the respondents-claimants shall be entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 17,87,170/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of application till realization. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal shall stand modified accordingly. The appeal of the appellant insurance company is allowed to the said extent. 18. At the time of admission of appeal, order was passed on 16.3.2007 in Civil Application - For Order No. 4011 of 2007 asking investment and disbursement of the awarded amount. Now since by this judgment, we have reduced the quantum as above and the amount to be given to the claimants-respondents would be as per the present judgment, the balance amount shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company with proportionate cost and interest and within six weeks by the Tribunal. 19. Record and Proceedings shall be sent back to the Tribunal concerned immediately.