JUDGMENT Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the appellant /Insurance Company and Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant. No one appears for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 2. The appellant has challenged the Judgment & Award dated 31.01.2018 passed in MACT Case No. 42/2016, whereby compensation amounting to Rs. 26,20,400/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till final payment has been awarded. 3. The appellant's only ground of challenge in the appeal petition, against the impugned Judgment & Award, is that the income of the deceased was not proved. 4. The appellant's counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal had awarded Rs. 3 Lakhs for Loss of Love and Affection for the 3 (three) minor children of the deceased and Rs. 1 Lakh for Loss of Expectation of Life, which is not in consonance with the judgment passed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The appellant's counsel thus prays that the impugned Judgment & Award should be modified by reducing the income of the deceased and by excluding the compensation provided for Loss of Love and Affection and Loss of Expectation of Life from the compensation amount to be awarded to the claimant. 5. Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant submits that the income of the deceased was proved by the wife of the deceased and also by the President of the Mistiri Association of Vairengte. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. The facts of the case in brief is that Smt. B. Lalchawimawii's husband, Sh. H. Lalchawimawia, aged 35 years, died in a motor vehicle accident on 06.09.2014 at around 11:30 P.M, involving Scooter bearing Registration No. MZ-01 B 0961 and TATA LPT 1109 bearing Registration No. AS-11 AC 1197. 8. The learned MACT, Aizawl after adducing evidence awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 26,20,400/- to the wife of the deceased Smt. B. Lalchawimawii. The learned Tribunal came to a finding that the deceased was a Carpenter earning Rs. 500/- per day and accordingly accepted his monthly income to be Rs. 12,000/-. 9. The compensation awarded to the respondent No. 1/claimant is as follows:- (1) Annual income =Rs. 26,20,400/- to the wife of the deceased Smt. B. Lalchawimawii. The learned Tribunal came to a finding that the deceased was a Carpenter earning Rs. 500/- per day and accordingly accepted his monthly income to be Rs. 12,000/-. 9. The compensation awarded to the respondent No. 1/claimant is as follows:- (1) Annual income =Rs. 12000 X 12 = 144000 (2) Addition of 40% for future prospec = Rs. 144000X40 = 57600 100 (3) Loss of income = 144000+57600x16x2=2150400 3 (4) Loss of consortium for wife = 40,000 (5) Loss of love and affection for 3 minor children of the deceased = 3,00,000 (6) Funeral Expenses = 15,000 (7) Loss of Estate = 15,000 (8) Loss of expectation of life Total Compensation Awarded = Rs. 26,20,400.00 (Rupees twenty six lakhs twenty thousand four hundred) only 10. The evidence of the wife of the deceased Smt. B. Lalchawimawii is to the effect that her deceased husband was a Carpenter and he was registered as a member of the Vairengte Mistiri Association, wherein the rate of a Carpenter was fixed at Rs. 500/- per day. Smt. B. Lalchawimawii also stated that the deceased used to work daily and he rarely took leave from his work. As he was a daily worker, the salary of the deceased husband was around Rs. 12,000/- and above. 11. The evidence of Sh. K. Sangbuanga, who is the President of the Vairengte Mistiri Association is to the effect that the Association had fixed the rate of a Carpenter at Rs. 500/- per day. 12. The question to be decided is to whether the evidence of the wife of the deceased, read with the evidence adduced by the President of the Vairengte Mistiri Association would be proof enough that the deceased earned Rs. 12,000/- per month. 13. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar, (2014) 5 SCC 330 and in the case of Ramachandrapa Vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 26 , the Apex Court has held that the learned Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimants regarding the income of the deceased in the absence of supporting materials. It depends on the facts of each. Ashok Kumar, (2014) 5 SCC 330 and in the case of Ramachandrapa Vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 26 , the Apex Court has held that the learned Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimants regarding the income of the deceased in the absence of supporting materials. It depends on the facts of each. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guesswork, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. 14. On considering the fact that the deceased Carpenter was working in Vairengte, this Court is of the view that the rate of a Carpenter @ Rs. 500/- per day is reasonable and it was possible for a Carpenter to have a monthly income of Rs. 12,000/- per month during the relevant period, if he had worked for 24 (twenty four) days in a month. 15. On considering the evidence in its entirety and the ground realities, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal in accepting the income of the deceased to be Rs. 12,000/- per month. 16. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal had wrongly awarded compensation for Loss of Love and Affection for the 3 (three) children and also for Loss of Expectation of Life, a perusal of the appeal petition shows that the appellant has not made any such pleadings to that effect. Accordingly, as no pleadings have been made, the compensation awarded for Loss of Love and Affection and for Loss of Expectation of Life is not interfered with. 17. The appeal petition is accordingly dismissed. 18. Registry to release the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the appellant. Send back the LCR.