JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the Judgment/award dated 08.12.2017 passed in T(M.V.) Suit No. 246 of 2014 by learned District Judge, XII-cum-M.A.C.T Judge, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 9,37,200/-along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as compensation amount to the claimants along with recovery right of Insurance Company (appellant) from the Insured “owner of the offending vehicle” 2. After service of notice respondent nos. 1-5/claimants appeared and filed their vakalatnama. Respondent no. 6, owner of the offending vehicle no. NL 010 8383 did not turn up in spite of valid service of notice. 3. Above captioned claim case was filed by claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,89,500/-along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of this case till its payment, on account of death of one Shiv Shankar Rabidas arising out of use of motor vehicle. It is alleged that on 22.05.2012 at about 16:15 hrs. deceased was standing at the left side of G.T. Road NH2 for crossing the road near Primary Health Centre Nirsa. Meanwhile, a truck bearing registration no. NL 01G 8383 coming from Nirsa and proceeding towards Dhanbad being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver dashed the deceased, who died on the spot. In connection with above accident Nirsa P.S. Case No. 131 of 2012 was registered for the offences under Sections 279/304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the driver of the offending vehicle and after investigation charge sheet was submitted against the driver, Tarani Singh. The post mortem report of the deceased was prepared. It is alleged that at the time of death the deceased was 20 years old and was working as a Raj Mistri and earning Rs. 7,500/-per month. The claimants are widow-wife and mother, brothers and sister of the deceased who were dependents on the income of the deceased. 4. The owner of the vehicle/defendant no.1 appeared before the tribunal and has filed separate written statement stating inter alia that his truck bearing registration no. NL 01G 8383 was insured with defendant no. 2, the National Insurance Company (Appellant). He is equipped with all vehicular documents, hence, insurance company is liable to satisfy the award amount, if any. 5. 4. The owner of the vehicle/defendant no.1 appeared before the tribunal and has filed separate written statement stating inter alia that his truck bearing registration no. NL 01G 8383 was insured with defendant no. 2, the National Insurance Company (Appellant). He is equipped with all vehicular documents, hence, insurance company is liable to satisfy the award amount, if any. 5. The Insurance Company in its written statement has denied the factum of accident but admitted the Insurance of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. NL 01G 8383 with this company. It was also pleaded that at the material time of alleged accident driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license hence, there is violation of terms and condition of policy and thus, company is not liable to satisfy the award and liable to be absolved from any liability. 6. The present appeal has been preferred by National Insurance Company Ltd. challenging the impugned award mainly on the grounds of wrong assessment of income of deceased and calculation of compensation against the settled principles of law which appears to be excessive. In this regard the learned tribunal has settled a specific issue no.6 “whether the deceased Shiv Shankar was earning Rs. 7,500/-per month or not”. The learned tribunal failed to appreciate that there was no documentary evidence about income of deceased to be Rs. 7,500/-per month nor there was any evidence to the effect that deceased was working as a Raj Mistry/skilled labour. The future prospect was also wrongly calculated to the extent of Rs. 2,59,200/-in case of a casual labour against the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Lmt. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 7. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5/claimants has submitted that due to poverty the claimants could not file any appeal against the impugned award but there is apparent infirmity in calculation of the just compensation as per norms settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments. He has placed reliance upon reported judgment in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , National Insurance Company Lmt. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. He has placed reliance upon reported judgment in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , National Insurance Company Lmt. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 and claimed for just and reasonable compensation in this case. 8. On the basis of points of argument raised on behalf of respective parties following points emerges for adjudication in this appeal I. Whether the learned tribunal has rightly fixed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 4,500/-per month . II. Whether the assessment of award amount is in violation of settled Principles of law and require to be modified. 9. In the instant case, it is admitted fact that deceased had left behind him five dependents including mother, widow, one brother and two sister’s. Age of deceased on the relevant date of accident was 20 years is also not disputed. The deceased died in an accident arising out of use of motor vehicle at public place is also proved beyond doubt and not challenged in this appeal. The main dispute raised by the appellant is regarding income of the deceased which has been decided by the learned tribunal considering the oral evidence of P.W. 1, P.W.2. & P.W. 3. (No documentary evidence about income of deceased was adduced) who have consistently proved the monthly income of the deceased Rs. 7,500/-per month and there was no rebuttal of the testimony in the cross examination to discredit or disbelieve the testimony of the witness about income of the deceased but the learned tribunal has recorded finding that “it can hardly be believed that a person of 20 years of age would start working as Raj Mistri, as the work of Raj Mistri requires some expertise which a labour after doing work for several years get. The submission of defendant Insurance Company cannot be denied that the income of the deceased has been shown as inflated for the purpose of making claim in the higher side. In this view of the matter the income of the deceased may be treated as Rs. 4,500/-per month for the purpose of awarding just compensation to the claimants/plaintiffs. 10. The submission of defendant Insurance Company cannot be denied that the income of the deceased has been shown as inflated for the purpose of making claim in the higher side. In this view of the matter the income of the deceased may be treated as Rs. 4,500/-per month for the purpose of awarding just compensation to the claimants/plaintiffs. 10. In order to properly appreciate the monthly income of the deceased the oral evidence of witnesses requires reconsideration. A.W. 1, Namita Das is the widow of the deceased Shiv Shankar Das who has categorically stated that her husband was working as a Raj Mistri and earning RS. 7,500/-per month. She has become widow just after three months of marriage It is very surprising that on behalf of present appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of this witness to rebut or discredit her evidence, rather there is simple suggestion that her husband was not earning Rs. 7,500/-per month and was also not working as a Raj Mistri. A.W. 2 Dinesh Das also happens to be a Raj Mistri and an independent witness, who has deposed that Shiv Shankar was working as a Raj Mistri along with him and earning Rs. 7,500/-per month. In his cross examination also this witness states that the deceased was working as a labour since 13 years of age and later on he was working under contractor Dara Das. A.W. 3, Sunil Kumar Ravidas is an independent witness and deposed that the deceased has worked in his house for a month on daily wages of Rs. 350/-. Nothing has been elicited in his cross examination to rebut his aforesaid testimony. 11. The aforesaid oral testimony of witnesses tendered on oath cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis of conjecture and surmises and extraneous considerations as opined by the learned tribunal, particularly in view of the fact that no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the National Insurance Company Ltd. (Appellant) to rebut the testimony of the witnesses. As such income of deceased Rs. 7,500/-per month cannot be doubted by any stretch of imagination and appears genuine for the purpose of assessment of compensation in this case. 12. The learned tribunal has assessed the compensation amount in this case under the following heads mentioned in the tabular chart:- HEAD 1. Income 2. As such income of deceased Rs. 7,500/-per month cannot be doubted by any stretch of imagination and appears genuine for the purpose of assessment of compensation in this case. 12. The learned tribunal has assessed the compensation amount in this case under the following heads mentioned in the tabular chart:- HEAD 1. Income 2. 1/3rd deducted as towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. 3. Compensation after M-18 is applied. 4. Loss of Estate 5. Funeral expenses 6. Loss of consortium 7. Future prospect (40 % of the established income as the deceased was below the age of 40 years. CALCULATION Rs. 4500/- per month Rs. 4500x1/3rd= Rs. 1500/- Rs. 4500-Rs. 1500=Rs. 3000/- Rs. 3000x18x12=Rs. 6,48,000 +Rs. 10000/- +Rs. 10000/- +Rs. 10000/- +Rs. 2,59,200/- Total Compensation awarded Rs. 9,37,200/- Total compensation amount of (Rs. Nine Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand and Two Hundred Only) and also directed that the above compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of this case till the date of the payment. 13. The provisions of the motor vehicle Act, 1988 (in short M.V. Act) gives paramount importance to the concept of ‘Just and Fair Compensation’. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the M.V. Act deals with the concept of ‘just compensation’ which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the court to award ‘just compensation’ irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicants. In Sarla Verma & Ors. Versus Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex court has held as under :- “16. ……………..‘Just compensation’ is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable on the facts and circumstances of the case to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex court has held as under :- “16. ……………..‘Just compensation’ is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable on the facts and circumstances of the case to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit” It was further held that here the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expensed towards deceased should be 1/3rd where the number of dependents family members is between 2 & 3, 1/4th where the number of dependents of family members is 4 &6 and 1/5th where the number of dependents family exceeds 6. 14. In the instant case, the deceased is survived by five dependents hence, deduction towards his personal expenses comes to 1/4th of the income and not 1/3rd as applied by the learned tribunal. Regarding the additions to be made for future prospect of the deceased, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Shetty (supra) has held as under “59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50 % of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the ae of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10 % where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 15. In the instant case, deceased was aged about 20 years and self employed, therefore, 40% of the established income is to be added as future prospect. 16. The tribunal has awarded meager sums of Rs. 10,000/-towards loss of estate, Rs. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 15. In the instant case, deceased was aged about 20 years and self employed, therefore, 40% of the established income is to be added as future prospect. 16. The tribunal has awarded meager sums of Rs. 10,000/-towards loss of estate, Rs. 10,000/-towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/-towards loss of consortium. In the case of Pranay Shetty (Supra), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court as under:- “52…. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.” 17. Considering the facts of this case and proposition of law as discussed above, the award passed by the tribunal is required to interfere and modified. Accordingly the award is modified as below. Sl. No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Income Rs. 7,500/- 2. Future Prospects (40% of Rs. 7,500/-) Rs. 3,000/- 3. Deduction Towards personal expenses as per Sarla Verma case 1/4th of (Rs. 7,500 +Rs.3,000/- )=Rs.2625/- 4. Total Annual Income Rs.10500/- – Rs. 2625/- = Rs. Accordingly the award is modified as below. Sl. No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Income Rs. 7,500/- 2. Future Prospects (40% of Rs. 7,500/-) Rs. 3,000/- 3. Deduction Towards personal expenses as per Sarla Verma case 1/4th of (Rs. 7,500 +Rs.3,000/- )=Rs.2625/- 4. Total Annual Income Rs.10500/- – Rs. 2625/- = Rs. 7875/- x12 = Rs. 94500/- 5. Multiplier 17 6. Loss of Dependency (Rs.94,500x17) = Rs.16,06,500 7. Funeral Expenses Rs. 50,000/- 8. Loss of Estate Rs. 20,000/- 9. Loss of Spousal Consortium Rs. 44,000/- 10. Loss of Parental Consortium to widow mother Rs. 44,000/- 11. Total Compensation to be paid Rs. 17,64,500/- Total Rs. 17,64,500/- 18. Above compensation amount shall carry 9 % simple interest from the date of institution of case till the date of realization. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest uptodate before the concerned Tribunal within 6 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this judgment. 19. In view of above discussion & reasons, this appeal is allowed with modification in award to the extent mentioned above. 20. The statutory amount deposited by appellant is directed to be returned.