JUDGMENT : 1. Impugned in this Appeal is Award dated 22nd October 2022, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “Tribunal”, on a Claim petition bearing Regd. No.MACP/173/2018 titled as Mst Shahzada Begum and others v. State and others, holding claimants – respondents 1 to 4, entitled to compensation in the amount of Rs.11,48,230/- inclusive of interim relief, if any, passed in their favour along with 7.5% simple interest per annum from the date of presentation of claim petition till its final realisation and appellants herein to pay the said amount, on the grounds made mention of therein. 2. A claim petition, as is evident from perusal of the file, was filed by respondents 1 to 4/claimants before the Tribunal on 26th October 2018, averring therein that on 18th May 2018, deceased, namely, Fayaz Ahmad Ahanger, was riding on his bicycle on correct side of the road and while proceeding from Barbarshah towards Nai Sadak, Kralkhud, Srinagar, was hit by motorcycle bearing registration no.JK01AE/1257, which was driven by respondent no.5 herein (driver). The deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries on various parts of body and was taken to SMHS Hospital, Srinagar, wherefrom he was referred to SKIMS, Soura, where injured succumbed to his injuries on 20th May 2018. FIR no.14/2018 in this regard was registered in police station Kralkhud. Claimants/Respondents 1 to 4 in their claim petition, prayed for grant of compensation in the amount of Rs.6.50 crores. 3. Appellants herein, who had been respondents 1&2 in claim petition before the Tribunal, however, did not cause their appearance muchless filing written statement. Respondent no.5 herein (driver), who had been respondent no.3 in claim petition before the Tribunal, filed his written statement, resisting claim petition. 4. The Tribunal, in view of pleadings of parties, vide order dated 9th June 2003, framed the Issues for determination, which are: 1) Whether on 18.05.2018, the deceased, namely, Fayaz Ahmad Ahanger S/o Abdul Gani Ahanger R/o Habbakadal, Srinagar, was riding on his bicycle on the correct side of the road and while proceeding from Barbarshah towards Nai Kadal Kralkhud, he wa shit by motorcycle bearing registration no.JK01AE/1257 which was driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.3 as the result deceased fell down and succumbed to injuries in hospital on 20.05.2018? OPP 2) Whether respondents 1&2 are registered owners of the offending vehicle bearing registration no.JK01AE/1257? OPP 2) Whether respondents 1&2 are registered owners of the offending vehicle bearing registration no.JK01AE/1257? OPP 3) In case issue no.1&2 are decided in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to, in what proportion and from whom? OPP 4) Relief. 5. Claimants/respondents 1 to 4 in support of their claim before the Tribunal produced and examined two witnesses, besides claimant/ respondent no.1. Insurance Company produced one witness and appellant-university produced one witness. Respondent no.1 (driver) also appeared as witness. He also produced and examined one witness in support of his stand. Thereafter the Tribunal passed impugned Award. Against which, instant appeal has been preferred. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. I have gone through the record of the Tribunal. 7. According to learned counsel for appellants, impugned Award has been passed in ex parte without hearing appellants and without affording them ample opportunities to file their written statement. Had Tribunal given them ample opportunity, impugned award would not have been passed. Appellants were set-aside, as such, they were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses produced by claimants before the Tribunal. Application filed by them before the Tribunal for setting-aside ex parte proceedings initiated against appellants, has not been considered by the Tribunal. He also avers that Tribunal has not rightly appreciated and the case and evidence produced by claimants which nowhere proves their case. The evidence produced by claimants is not reliable so far as cause behind accident is concerned. The witnesses’ evidence when taken at its face value is neither relevant nor trustworthy. The award amount is excessive as same has been arrived at on the basis of exaggerated calculation and without any yardstick. 8. As regards Issue no.1, as to whether on 18th May 2018, deceased was riding on his bicycle on correct side of road and while proceeding from Barbarshah towards Nai Sadak, Kralkhud, was hit by offending vehicle, resulting in death of deceased, registration of criminal case against driver of offending vehicle is enough to record a finding that owner of offending vehicle was responsible for causing death. It is pertinent to mention here that record of the Tribunal, amongst others, comprises of copies of FIR no.14/2018; Death Summary by SKIMS, Srinagar; Medical Certificate of Cause of Death by SKIMS; Form Mazroobi; Death Certificate issued by Registrar Births & Deaths; Challan presented before the court of competent jurisdiction. These documents are sufficient proof to reach the conclusion that driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. In such circumstances, contention of learned counsel for appellants falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of driver. 9. This Court, while exercising the powers of Appellate Court to decide the appeal in hand, can also go through the pleadings of the parties urged and projected by them before the Tribunal. 10. Insofar as application filed by appellants before the Tribunal to set-aside ex parte proceedings initiated against them by the Tribunal on 15th March 2021 is concerned, I have, while perusing the record, gone through the said application. In its paragraph 3, it is stated by appellants that their non-appearance/absence was neither deliberate nor intentional but was due to law and order situation that arose in J&K after passing of J&K Reorganization Act, 2019, and secondly in view of COVID-19 Pandemic which hit the whole world and due to this breakout, the courts remained closed for a long period of time and as a result of which appellants lost track of the case and hence could not cause their appearance in the case. As regards J&K Reorganization Act is concerned, the same was passed in the year 2019. Insofar as COVID-19 is concerned, it spread in J&K in 2020. By their own showing, the ex parte proceedings were initiated on 15th March 2021 whereas the claim petition was filed in the year 2018, i.e., on 26th October 2018. There is no force and substance in the submissions made by appellants in their application for setting-aside ex parte proceedings before the Tribunal. Appellants have large number of law officers through breadth and length of UT of J&K to appear on behalf of Government. They have been engaging standing counsels in all courts muchless the Tribunal. There is no force and substance in the submissions made by appellants in their application for setting-aside ex parte proceedings before the Tribunal. Appellants have large number of law officers through breadth and length of UT of J&K to appear on behalf of Government. They have been engaging standing counsels in all courts muchless the Tribunal. They cannot be heard saying that there was no advocate available to represent them before the Tribunal. It is also totally wrong statement on the part of appellants that as a consequence of passing of J&K Reorganization Act, 2019 and spread of COVID-19, the courts in J&K remained closed for long period of time. It is made clear here that the Courts remained functional during all that time. Even the latest technology was used by the Courts throughout world muchless the J&K, which was/is being called as Virtual Mode/Video Conferencing. The technology then adopted viz. Virtual Mode/Video Conferencing is being even used today by the Courts, Schools, Government Departments, corporate/private sector. The appellants by relying on the application for setting-aside the ex parte proceedings could not wriggle out of its responsibility and liability of paying the compensation in terms of impugned Award. And to this extent the contention of appellants is specious. 11. Next contention of learned counsel for appellant is that the Tribunal has failed to take into account actual monthly income when the claimants could not prove the same while leading evidence in support of same issue. The Tribunal has applied guess work as such award is based on hypothetical income. The quantum assessed by the Tribunal to the extent of taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,750/- without any proof of income to be furnished on the part of the claimants before the Tribunal of the deceased at the time of accident and future prospects, are not in consonance with law and does not fall within the parameters of just compensation. It is maintained that established income means the income minus tax component as held in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , and therefore, impugned award is exorbitant and not commensurate with the entitlement of claimants, and appropriate reduction needs to be made in the quantum assessed by the Tribunal, as such. It is maintained that established income means the income minus tax component as held in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , and therefore, impugned award is exorbitant and not commensurate with the entitlement of claimants, and appropriate reduction needs to be made in the quantum assessed by the Tribunal, as such. It is also averred by learned counsel for appellant that the Tribunal has committed error while applying multiplier as prescribed under landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCALE 129 . According to him, granting of interest by the Tribunal @ 7.5% per annum is not in accordance with the law. Thus, the impugned award being illegal, improper and not in consonance with law. As regards above submissions, the Tribunal, while deciding Issue no.3, has made threadbare discussion. Deceased, as is evident from the file and impugned Award, was having a workshop. He was motor mechanic. It was on the basis of said averment that claimants/ respondents maintained that deceased was earning Rs.1.00 lakh per month. The witnesses produced by claimants also deposed that deceased was earning Rs.1.00 Lac per month but claimants could not produce any documentary evidence to that extent. It is only after discussion of all the evidence available before the Tribunal that it computed, and rightly so, Rs.6750/- as monthly income of deceased. While doing so, the Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). The Tribunal has also correctly applied the multiplier and multiplicand. Compensation on other accounts has been given by Tribunal appropriately. 12. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) has laid down the principles governing determination of quantum of compensation in the case of death in a motor accident. The Supreme Court has held that compensation awarded does not become ‘just compensation’ merely because the Tribunal considers it to be just. 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 is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by following well settled steps, namely, ascertaining multiplicand (annual contribution to the family), multiplier and calculation of loss of dependency by multiplying the multiplicand by such multiplier. 13. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company, (2011) 13 SCC 236 , the Supreme Court held that claimant, who was working as a coolie, could not be expected to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In absence of any other evidence contrary to claim made by claimant, in the facts of the said case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of claimant. The Supreme Court has made it clear that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not to accept claim of claimant, in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. 14. Again, the Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 735 , while taking note of earlier decision in Ramachandrappa’s case (supra), held that a labourer in an unorganized sector doing his own business could not be expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. Therefore, there was no reason for Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence to prove his monthly income. Going by the state of economy, prevailing at that time and rising prices in agricultural products, the Supreme Court accepted his case that a vegetable vendor was reasonably capable of earning 6,500/- per month. 15. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with concept of ‘just compensation’ and same has to be determined on foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. 15. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with concept of ‘just compensation’ and same has to be determined on foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of ‘just compensation’ has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and nonviolation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the Tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to be guided by the expression, i.e., just compensation. 16. While analysing the case in hand on the touchstone of law laid down by the Supreme Court, as discussed herein above, impugned Award does not warrant for any interference and as a corollary thereof Appeal on hand is liable to be dismissed. 17. For the foregoing reasons, Appeal is dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. 18. Copy of this judgement be sent down along with record of the Tribunal.